Health

More than 360 people, including 130 children, have died from hunger since the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

A total of 185 people in Gaza died “due to malnutrition” in August, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, as an additional 13 people, including three children, have died in 24 hours since then as the catastrophic effects of Israeli-induced famine in the enclave worsen.

The statement issued on Tuesday said more than 83 people, including 15 children, had died since the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a United Nations-backed global hunger-monitoring system, declared last month that parts of Gaza were undergoing a full-blown famine.

The Health Ministry also said 43,000 children below the age of five were suffering from malnutrition along with more than 55,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women. Two-thirds of pregnant women were suffering from anaemia, the highest rate in years, it added. Mothers and newborns are the most at risk from malnutrition.

The total number of hunger-related deaths in the besieged enclave now stands at 361, including 130 children, since the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza on October 7, 2023.

Israel has killed at least 63,633 people in Gaza and wounded 160,914 during the war, according to the Ministry of Health.

The IPC declared on August 22 that 514,000 people in the Gaza Strip, close to a quarter of the enclave’s population, are experiencing famine. It expected the number to rise to 641,000 by the end of September.

The IPC made its declaration after more than 22 months of war, during which Israeli forces have destroyed medical facilities, schools, infrastructure and bakeries; blocked the entry of aid into the besieged Strip; and targeted and killed Palestinians seeking food aid.

This is the first time the IPC has recorded famine outside Africa, and the global group predicted that famine conditions would spread to Deir el-Balah in central Gaza and Khan Younis in the south by the end of this month.

After the IPC’s declaration, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the famine a “man-made disaster, a moral indictment and a failure of humanity itself”.

Guterres said Israel had “unequivocal obligations” under international law as an occupying power to ensure food and medical supplies enter Gaza.

Humanitarian organisations have demanded action. For its part, Israel rejected the findings, saying there was no famine in Gaza despite the IPC’s overwhelming evidence.

At least 63 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks across Gaza since dawn on Tuesday, among them 41 in Gaza City alone, medical sources told Al Jazeera. Among the killed, 19 were aid seekers situated in central and southern Gaza.

Israeli attacks are mainly, but not solely, now focused on Gaza City, the territory’s largest urban centre, as the Israeli army relentlessly bombards it and tries to forcibly displace its residents to the southern part of the enclave.

“Civilians on the ground are bearing the brunt. There are still hundreds of thousands of families in Gaza City,” reported Al Jazeera correspondent Tareq Abu Azzoum at midday from Deir el-Balah. “They refuse to leave because they know that there are no safe spaces in central and southern Gaza and they would rather stay close to their communities and what’s left of their houses.”

Once teeming and crowded with residential buildings, Gaza City has been home to one million Palestinians, nearly half of Gaza’s population, but it is now a landscape of rubble.

The world’s top genocide scholars formally declared that Israel’s war on Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide, marking a landmark intervention from leading experts in the field of international law.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars, a 500-member body of academics founded in 1994, passed a resolution on Monday stating that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza fulfil the definition of genocide set out in the 1948 UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

WRAPPED around the hoover, blocking the plughole and stuck on the shower wall – it feels like hair gets everywhere.

It’s normal to lose hair every day, but sometimes, the large clump in your hairbrush can feel worrying. But what is ‘normal’, and what could be causing your locks to fall out faster? We reveal the hidden health concerns, and how to fix them to stop the shed.

7

7

Eva Proudman, founder of www.ukhairconsultants.com, consultant trichologist and Fellow of the Institute of Trichologists UK, tells Sun Health: “Everyone is going to see some hair coming out of the head daily; this is part of the normal growing and shedding cycle.

“Around 50-150 hairs can be shed daily.

“If you wash every day, you will see less than if you leave it for three or four days, as the shed hair is held within the hair by a natural static charge that is broken when the hair is washed.”

While some hair loss is a natural part of getting older – for example, women tend to see thinning due to menopause – and genetic predisposition can lead to gradual thinning over time, any sudden changes warrant concern.

Eva, who sees many distressed patients in her clinics, says: “If you are noticing more hair in the brush, shower, on your clothes, or being picked up by your hoover, seek advice from a professional to identify and understand the cause.”

Our hair is not only part of our identity, but is “often said to be a reflection of your general health,” adds Eva.

“In many cases, these symptoms are linked to an underlying medical issue.”

From hormonal issues to autoimmune diseases, here are the causes worth considering…

DIET NOT CUTTING IT

EXCESSIVE hair shedding and thinning from iron and vitamin B12 deficiency is called telogen effluvium – a form of temporary loss.

Telogen effluvium can be triggered by several factors, from stress to viruses and inflammation, which disrupt the hair growth cycle.

7

Eva says: “Being deficient in iron and vitamin B12 can also cause fatigue, brain fog, aches and pains, and a general state of feeling unwell.

“This is especially true if you eat a limited diet, whether vegetarian, vegan or you are on GLP-1 ‘weight loss’ jabs, and exclude core food groups such as red meat and animal proteins.”

Trichologists use a blood test to ascertain stored levels before advising on dietary or supplementary changes.

“The results take time to show,” Eva notes. “It’s usually a minimum of four to six months.

“However, the relief as the hair shedding reduces also brings a reduction in stress and anxiety, which is supportive to both hair and general health.”

SLUGGISH GLAND

BOTH types of thyroid disease (overactive and underactive) affect the hair, says Eva.

She adds: “In my clinics, I see clients with excessive hair shedding, thinning and breakage that also present with other recognised signs and symptoms of thyroid disease.

7

“It has an impact on female pattern hair loss (FPHL), whether it is hypothyroidism (underactive) or hyperthyroidism (overactive).”
FPHL tends to affect the crown of the head.

An underactive thyroid can also cause brittle and fragile hair, while overactive can cause excessive shedding.

For the former, look out for symptoms such as “severe tiredness, weight gain and feeling cold”, says Eva, and for the latter, “you may find there’s weight loss, a feeling of ‘running on overdrive’, and poor sleep”.

The thyroid is a gland in the neck that produces two hormones (TSH and T4) vital for all the cells in the body to work efficiently.

Both types of thyroid disease, which can occur at any age, are treated with medication for life.

HORMONES GOING HAYWIRE

ONE in ten women have PCOS, a hormonal condition that causes the male hormones to be more dominant.

“PCOS is a very common condition in my clinics, particularly in younger ladies who see me due to hair thinning and loss, as well as a feeling of being able to see more scalp, with slow growth,” explains Eva.

7

Other signs and symptoms can include heavy and/or irregular periods, facial hair, weight gain, oily skin and scalp, and acne.

Eva says: “Insulin resistance or pre-diabetes is often seen in my clinics.

“But this is also a common standalone condition in the UK, causing the body to have an ineffective response to insulin.

“The increase of insulin in the bloodstream can stimulate the ovaries to produce more androgens, providing an environment that promotes thinning and shedding and an exacerbation of the FPHL.”

Eva adds: “This health condition should ideally be managed jointly between the trichologist and GP.

“Lifestyle changes definitely help; we work on diet and the uptake and storage of nutrients to give the correct levels for optimum hair health.”

Hair growth treatments, like Minoxidil, or Tricoactiv+, may also be used.

BODY’S BETRAYAL

IN the case of autoimmune conditions, the body attacks its own tissues, such as the hair follicles.

Eva says: “A common – and very distressing – autoimmune condition is frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA).

7

“This causes the hairline to recede with permanent loss, and so it’s important to get an early, accurate diagnosis as there are supportive treatments that can stabilise the condition to help to prevent further hair loss.”

FFA is a type of scarring autoimmune condition, meaning the hair will not grow back.

“It presents with a lack of follicular orifices, usually a smooth area of skin with a paler skin pigmentation,” says Eva.

Alopecia areata is a non-scarring autoimmune condition in which hair loss can come and go.

Eva says: “It causes patchy hair loss, usually in smooth circles.
“In some cases, it develops into total hair loss on the scalp (alopecia totalis) or total hair loss all over the body (alopecia universalis).

“When the condition is active, you see clinical signs such as yellow dots on the scalp, black dots and exclamation hairs. When there are no signs like this, there can then be regrowth and recovery.

“Treatments for this type of condition range from scalp massage, stimulating oils, topical Minoxidil, topical steroids, steroid injections and JAK (Janus kinase) inhibitors.”

SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM

VIRUSES can cause hair and scalp issues, often a diffuse thinning, which is a uniform, widespread loss of density across the scalp.

This is a form of telogen effluvium – temporary hair loss that affects the hair growth cycle.

7

Covid-19, for example, can potentially cause hair loss, though it might not appear until months later.

Eva says: “With a virus, it can feel like hair loss but may actually be a disruption to the growing and shedding cycle of the hair, called telogen effluvium.

“This condition can have multiple underlying causes and though alarming at first, it is generally short-lived in most circumstances.”

This type of hair loss tends to resolve on its own, but in more severe or prolonged cases, a doctor may recommend medications to support regrowth.

Eva says: “As with all hair-related problems, the sooner you seek professional advice and have an accurate diagnosis, the sooner you can start to treat and get the hair back to normal.

“Many of the products advertised online or across social media may not be relevant.

“Just because something says it works, doesn’t mean it does or will!

“The cost and stress of trying many different treatments can be avoided just by seeking the right advice.”

IMOGEN Thomas has given fans a health update as she returned to social media with her first snap since undergoing breast reduction surgery.

The former Big Brother star, 42, posted a fresh-faced selfie as she gave her followers a glimpse of her surgery day.

6

6

She thanked fans for their support as she adjusts to life after surgery.

Imogen shared snaps taken before the op – posing in her gown while consulting with her surgeon and getting marked up.

She later posted a hospital bed selfie post-surgery, bandaged up but smiling, giving the camera a thumbs up.

She wrote on Instagram: “It’s been 5 days since I’ve had my surgery and this in journey has been incredible.

“Do you wanna see how my breasts look on day 7? So u can see step by step what is expected.

“I’m blown away by all your messages and your investment in this as so many of you want to get it done and I’m so happy my journey is helping you x”.

Imogen revealed she was getting a boob job as she said: “Hi everyone, so I just wanted to pop on and tell you a bit of news in my life.

“I am going to Istanbul on Monday for breast augmentation. I cannot wait, my boobs right now are really big for me.

“I’ve lost quite a bit of weight and I just can’t have this anymore.

“So I found the best surgeon in Istanbul.”

She continued: “I had a great video consultation with him and I’m flying out. I’m getting them done.

“I’m going smaller and I’m getting an uplift and I cannot wait to show you guys the results in my dresses, in my workout wear. I cannot wait to feel body confident again.

“Like the excitement is literally unreal. I can’t believe I found the time to go for a start, which is great.”

Imogen ended by saying: “So yeah, cannot wait to show you guys. It’s something that I’m super excited about and yeah, you’re going to see a lot in the next few days.”

Big Brother winners from over the years

Since launching in 2000, reality TV juggernaut Big Brother has crowned several champions over the years. Let’s take a look back at some of them.

The former glamour model remained in the spotlight ever since her stint in the famous house and even had an affair with a VERY famous footballer.

The former Miss Wales lasted 86 days in the Big Brother house, becoming good pals with the late Nikki Grahame and fellow Welshman Glyn Wise, who finished runner-up behind Pete Bennett.

As soon as she was evicted she was commanding five-figure sums for racy lads’ mag shoots — and was named Wales’s Sexiest Woman.

Since then, she has been known for her sexy photo shoots over the years.

She was also seen at the swankiest showbiz parties and dated high-profile footballers, including a heavily publicised affair with married Wales and Man Utd star Ryan Giggs, who placed a gagging order on her.

Once news of the relationship broke, she publicly apologised for the affair.

At the time, she said: “I called it off a million times but he kept coming back.

“He knew it was wrong as well, he said as much, but he was pursuing me.”

Imogen now boasts a property empire worth £10million.

The mum-of-two insisted that fame “doesn’t last forever” and urged new reality stars to “take every opportunity” that comes their way.

“What you get offered take because beggars can’t be choosers at the end of the day,” Imogen said.

“When I was on the show, there were so many magazines that I could be modelling for and I was for like 10 years straight. I had so many contracts with them.”

She continued to the Metro: “Yes, you’ve got social media and I work on that now and I’m making thousands a post but brands are a little bit more cautious now and they don’t want to be paying the money anymore.

“So for me, I would just say take whatever you can get and make good of the situation because it does dry out.”

She also told The Sun: “I came off the show and I just started working from day one. It was amazing, I made a lot of money.

“It was just all a bit surreal because I went in as a hostess and came out just making all this money and being wanted by everyone.

“It was pretty crazy to get your head around. But I loved it.

“I was in there for three months, no contact with the outside world, then all of a sudden everyone knows you, and you’ve got to get used to the fame.”

6

6

6

6

It’s been more than 2,000 days since Covid-19 appeared in late 2019 growing to more than 700 million cases and at least 7 million deaths globally. Like many other people who were infected by Covid-19, I have long thought about its origins and where we go next.

As someone who had been a lawyer admitted to practice before the Supreme Courts of the US, New York and Massachusetts, and as chief legal counsel of President Jimmy Carter’s White House Conference on Families, looking at Covid-19 from an international law perspective by the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, it’s clear to me that no country has proven where the disease originated.

Under international law the principle of onus probandi,serious matters like lethal modalities such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or allegations of lethal pathogenic origins require the highest standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is also why the complaining party, not the accused, that bears the burden of proof.

That’s also why the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens explicitly requires the proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” gold standard, not the lower “preponderance of the evidence” test that something is merely more likely true than not. And it’s why the WHO panel operates under the legal principle of in dubio pro reo, a presumption of innocence until the accusing party proves otherwise.

Applying these standards, the required burden of proof level has not been met in even one case as the US and some allies have falsely accused Wuhan as being the origin of Covid-19.

China, in fact met its primary obligations under the WHO International Health Regulations, including timely notification to WHO of unusual pneumonia cases in December, 2019; sharing viral genome sequencing with WHO in December, 2019; and facilitating the WHO-China joint investigation during 2021.

I also find it unpersuasive that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test was met since there were multiple independent reports, including wastewater and antibody blood testing of varying levels of credibility, of Covid-19  being present in Europe and the Americas prior to December 1, 2019. Since there is substantial evidence that Covid-19 appeared earlier on in numerous venues far beyond China, it has to be a case of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. For example, consider:

In Italy, multiple studies based on the presence of antibodies in blood samples found Covid-19 as early as October, 2019.

In France, the analysis of thousands of blood samples detected Covid-19 antibodies in 13 cases from November, 2019 to January, 2020.

In the Americas, signs of Covid-19 based on the presence of antibodies in blood samples were found in Brazil in November, 2019 and in the US in early December, 2019.

To me, however, the most convincing evidence is that after so much time has passed and so much money has been expended, no Western intelligence agency has been able to find Covid-19s origin with a high level of confidence; therefore not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Beginning with 2020, without the legal proof threshold being met, a handful of lawsuits outside the US, were filed against China over Covid-19 . All have been unsuccessful. In the US, a greater number of cases yielded only two Pyrric victories among numerous defeats whose massive judgments in cases that are mere political theater, clogged an understaffed, overburdened  judicial system, but not one cent will ever be collected because under international law, these judgments will be uncollectable. There are several reasons for these disparities.

Legally, other nations have more respect for the longstanding doctrine of sovereign immunity governing one nation or its political subdivisions suing another. Consequently, such cases are also more difficult to file there.  The doctrine, which must be music to Donald Trump’s ears, can be traced back to the English common law doctrine: rex non potest peccare or “the king can do no wrong”.

The US is the most litigious country globally, having the highest number of cases filed annually. One of the reasons is an unusual feature of the American legal system that allows litigants to bring cases without paying their lawyer, unless their lawyers are successful, in which case the lawyers take a negotiated percentage of the judgment, usually upwards of 40%.

From the 1990s, The US had been more politically divided. As part of this trend, American views on China were negatively affected and have severely deteriorated, accelerated by Covid-19. For example, Gallup found that about 41% of American had a favorable view of China in February, 2019, but by 2023 this number fell to 15%. Putting these facts together, it’s no surprise that the US has been the ground zero for quixotic  lawsuits seeking damages for Covid19.

US courts are governed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which accords foreign states broad immunity from lawsuits in US courts with several seemingly narrow exceptions. China, however, adheres to the principle of absolute sovereign immunity, and does not recognize the exceptions and abstains from appearing in US courts.

The exceptions, however, encouraged the conservative attorneys-general of red states Missouri and Mississippi to sue China. They were fully aware of China’s position and the futility of obtaining damages, beyond performing a political theater of the absurd that would further gum up an already understaffed judicial system.

Both officials belong to the National Association of Attorney Generals, which we jokingly call “National Association of Aspiring Governors” and both used the suits to waste taxpayers money to further their political careers, and in the case of the Missouri A-G, to help him become US senator.

The “justice is blind” mantra, at least in the case of Missouri, also fall on deaf ears. The 2-1 decision that turned on the narrow exceptions, smacks of political bias. At least one of the two judges allowing the exceptions to hold against China, perhaps both, should have recused themselves to avoid an appearance of impropriety; each was a Trump-appointee.

Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., who wrote the majority opinion is first cousin of the notorious extreme right media commentator Rush Limbaugh. The latter, with an audience of more than 15 million, had said that “the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another weapon to bring down Donald Trump and it probably is a ChiCom (Chinese Communist) laboratory experiment that is in the process of being weaponized”. Judge Limbaugh had an unambiguous moral duty to recuse himself. but didn’t.

The cases have many flaws but I agree with the dissent in the Missouri case, written by the Chief Judge, not a Trump-appointee, that the exceptions did not apply to China.

The Covid-19 nightmare may be over but other pathogens with pandemic potential are literally waiting in the wings. Last year there were 17 global disease outbreaks, including Marburg virus. Mpox and H5N1 bird flu.

Experts warn that there is a 40 to 53% likelihood of another serious pandemic within 25 years.

Trump has already slashed the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) budget from $9.3 to 4.2 billion in 2026. At the same time WHO will (again) lose its largest contributor next year per orders of President Trump to the tune of $500 million to $1.3 billion. Combined, this will cripple the UN body and severely weaken global health surveillance, especially neutering WHOs Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network that relies heavily on American data-sharing and technical support. Trump has even forbidden the remaining experts who weren’t fired from the CDC, from co-authoring scientific papers with WHO staff.

Sadly, like the CDC. the WHO itself is destined to be in poor health, and may suffer terminal decline, causing needless deaths at home and abroad if the US continues down its selfish path. This churlish US action will undoubtedly severely increase the more than 14 million deaths forecast globally by 2030 as a consequence of savage 83% budget cuts to the US Agency for International Development and related US foreign aid programs.

China will assuredly pick up some of the slack, especially via its Belt and Road Initiative and its Health Silk Road but cannot unilaterally restore funding to previous levels. Other nations hopefully can pick up some of the shortfall.

Under international law, we may never know where Covid-19 came from. However, If we don’t want the past to be prologue and if we don’t follow philosopher George Santayana’s wise advice that those who don’t learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them, we must prepare our new multipolar world for the health and other shocks that await us.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is planning to remove nearly 700 Guatemalan children who had come to the U.S. without their parents, according to a letter sent Friday by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, and the Central American country said it was ready to take them in.

The removals would violate the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s “child welfare mandate and this country’s long-established obligation to these children,” Wyden told Angie Salazar, acting director of the office within the Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for migrant children who arrive in the U.S. alone.

“This move threatens to separate children from their families, lawyers, and support systems, to thrust them back into the very conditions they are seeking refuge from, and to disappear vulnerable children beyond the reach of American law and oversight,” the Democratic senator wrote, asking for the deportation plans to be terminated.

It is another step in the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration enforcement efforts, which include plans to surge officers to Chicago for an immigration crackdown, ramping up deportations and ending protections for people who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

Guatemalan Foreign Affairs Minister Carlos Martínez said Friday that the government has told the U.S. it is willing to receive hundreds of Guatemalan minors who arrived unaccompanied to the United States and are being held in U.S. facilities.

Guatemala is particularly concerned about minors who could age out of the facilities for children and be sent to adult detention centers, he said. The exact number of children to be returned remains in flux, but they are currently discussing a little over 600. He said no date has been set yet for their return.

That would be almost double what Guatemala previously agreed to. The head of the country’s immigration service said last month that the government was looking to repatriate 341 unaccompanied minors who were being held in U.S. facilities.

“The idea is to bring them back before they reach 18 years old so that they are not taken to an adult detention center,” Guatemala Immigration Institute Director Danilo Rivera said at the time. He said it would be done at Guatemala’s expense and would be a form of voluntary return.

The plan was announced by President Bernardo Arévalo, who said then that the government had a moral and legal obligation to advocate for the children. His comments came days after U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited Guatemala.

The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the latest move, which was first reported by CNN.

Quoting unidentified whistleblowers, Wyden’s letter said children who do not have a parent or legal guardian as a sponsor or who don’t have an asylum case already underway “will be forcibly removed from the country.”

The idea of repatriating such a large number of children to their home country also raised concerns with activists who work with children navigating the immigration process.

“We are outraged by the Trump administration’s renewed assault on the rights of immigrant children,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, president and CEO of Immigrant Defenders Law Center. “We are not fooled by their attempt to mask these efforts as mere ‘repatriations.’ This is yet another calculated attempt to sever what little due process remains in the immigration system.”

Santana, Seitz and Gonzalez write for the Associated Press. Gonzalez reported from McAllen, Texas. AP writers Sonia Pérez D. in Guatemala City and Tim Sullivan in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

Winter is approaching in the United States and COVID-19 cases are rising. Questions about accessing protective vaccines are swirling.

Nearly five years since the first US patient was vaccinated to help stem what was then a raging coronavirus pandemic, doctors, patients and pharmacists are navigating a radically different public health landscape.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on August 27 announced it had approved some COVID-19 vaccines – but for far fewer people than in years past.

If you tried to schedule a COVID-19 vaccine this week, your pharmacy’s online scheduler might have told you it isn’t available yet.

Meanwhile, leading medical organisations disagree with the government’s latest COVID-19 vaccine guidance.

If all that leaves you wondering about your ability to get a COVID-19 shot, you’re not alone. It’s confusing.

We sought answers.

Q: Who can get a COVID-19 vaccine?

First, what we do know: The FDA approved the 2025-26 vaccines for anyone age 65 and older and any person six months and older who has at least one underlying health condition that increases their risk of severe COVID-19 infection.

So, people in those groups should be able to schedule vaccinations as soon as healthcare providers who are authorised to administer the vaccine receive it – likely in the next few weeks.

Q: I don’t fit into those categories. Am I banned from getting a COVID-19 vaccine?

Not “banned”, per se. But it may require more legwork on your end. You’ll need to consult your doctor, who can legally prescribe a COVID-19 vaccine for you even if you don’t fall within the categories the FDA specified.

“Physicians can prescribe medications and vaccines that are beyond the label, beyond the licence,” said Dr William Schaffner, Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor of infectious diseases.

That’s true for adults and children – and the practice of prescribing medications and vaccines for “off-label” use is fairly common in paediatrics, he said.

Q: OK, so will insurance still cover COVID-19 vaccinations under these new rules?

If you’re in one of the two FDA-approved categories, the outlook is probably better than if you’re not.

Federal law requires that most health insurance plans fully cover vaccines recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its vaccine advisory committee.

Here’s the rub: Because the CDC hasn’t yet adopted 2025-26 COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, whether the shots will be covered by insurance is a grey area.

The CDC’s panel of experts, the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP), had planned to vote on updated COVID-19 vaccine recommendations at its June meeting, but did not. And it’s unclear when or if the ACIP will vote on the recommendations.

But there could be another avenue for people to get insurance-covered COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC’s vaccine recommendations typically include a provision for what’s known as “shared clinical decision making”, Schaffner said.

That means, for example, “If you were 52 years old and otherwise healthy, but you nonetheless wanted to get the vaccine, you could discuss that with your doctor – shared clinical decision-making – and you could receive the vaccine, and insurance companies would honour that,” he said.

That provision could be important for healthy people who want to avoid COVID-19 infection because they are close contacts with or care for people with high-risk conditions.

But again, without CDC recommendations, “We don’t know if that provision is still there,” Schaffner said.

To confirm whether your insurance will cover your COVID-19 shot, Schaffner recommends talking to your doctor and, potentially, your insurance provider. But first, give it a little more time: healthcare providers themselves are still working out the details.

Q: If my insurance doesn’t cover vaccination, how much might it cost?

Vaccine manufacturers report that COVID-19 vaccines cost about $142, according to the CDC’s price lists. It’s unclear whether that would be the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving a COVID-19 vaccine not covered by insurance.

Q: Are COVID-19 vaccines still recommended during pregnancy? And if I’m pregnant and want one, what can I do? 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr in May announced he had unilaterally removed COVID-19 vaccines from the recommended immunisation schedule for healthy children and pregnant women. The health-focused news outlet STAT reported that no one from the CDC or ACIP was consulted before Kennedy announced this change. Vaccine experts called the move concerning and unprecedented.

Removing the vaccines from the immunisation schedule could limit vaccine access by reducing insurance companies’ coverage of the shot. But again, by consulting with your doctor, you might still be able to access it. Some pharmacies also might be able to provide it, because the CDC lists pregnancy as a factor that increases the risk of severe COVID-19 infection.

Q: Is there anyone who should not get the COVID-19 shot?

Broad health guidance always comes with exceptions. For example, people who have had “a very severe adverse reaction to a previous COVID-19 vaccine” should not get this season’s version, Schaffner said. You should discuss your health situation with your physician for personalised guidance.

Q: Why is the outlook for COVID-19 vaccines so different this year?

In short, Kennedy has long been broadly critical of vaccinations and, now that he’s in charge of the nation’s healthcare policy, has taken actions to overhaul their regulation and distribution.

Typically, the CDC recommends vaccines based on guidance from ACIP. ACIP’s recommendations become CDC policy if they’re adopted by the CDC director. This year, Kennedy fired all 17 members of ACIP and replaced them with new members, many of whom have expressed anti-vaccine views. CDC Director Susan Monarez was fired on August 27 amid a dispute with Kennedy over vaccine policy.

In previous years, the CDC recommended annual COVID-19 vaccines for everyone aged six months and older. The committee still hasn’t issued COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for this year.

Q: Aren’t there some medical organisations that recommend COVID-19 vaccinations for most people, though? 

Yes. In recent months, professional organisations have issued their own recommendations that contradict new messaging from the federal government.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine COVID-19 vaccines for all children aged six months to 23 months and for children aged two to 18 in some situations, including if they’re at high risk of COVID-19, have never been vaccinated against it or live in a household with people who are high risk.

And the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that anyone pregnant or lactating receive updated or “booster” COVID-19 vaccines.

Dr Tina Tan, president of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said the FDA’s decision to limit the COVID-19 vaccine’s approval “contradicts the evidence base, severely undermines trust in science-driven policy and dangerously limits vaccine access”.

Q: What qualifies as an underlying health condition that puts someone at higher risk? 

The FDA and HHS did not point us to a list of health conditions that meet the high-risk requirements.

The CDC’s website catalogues a number of underlying conditions that it said demonstrate “a conclusive increase in risk for at least one severe COVID-19 outcome”. They included: chronic lung diseases, cancer, certain chronic kidney and liver diseases, diabetes, some disabilities, heart conditions, HIV, physical inactivity, primary immunodeficiencies and some mental health conditions.

Q: But I clicked on those lists and both say ‘pregnancy and recent pregnancy’ are risk factors. How do I square that with the latest changes?

You’re right. These lists are inconsistent with the messaging coming from top HHS officials. Again, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant and lactating. Talk to your doctor.

Q: Is this season’s COVID-19 vaccine formula different from last season’s?

Yes. After the FDA passed its recommendations to vaccine manufacturers in May, the COVID-19 vaccines were updated to target the viral strain expected to circulate this year. The changes align with the World Health Organization’s recommendations.

Q: When will the updated COVID-19 shots be available? 

Since the FDA’s approval, updated vaccines are set to start shipping immediately and might even be available now in some pharmacies. Pfizer said it was shipping immediately and would be available across the US “in the coming days”. Sanofi, the company distributing the Novavax non-mRNA vaccines, said its vaccine should be available “in the early fall”.

But what that means for how quickly you can access it could depend on where you live, your age and your health. (See next question.)

Q: Where can I get the updated COVID-19 shots? 

We knew you were going to ask. And we wish we had a straightforward answer.

If you typically get your COVID-19 shots at a local pharmacy, it might not be that easy this year.

As of August 29, the scheduling apps for Walgreens and CVS notified patients in some locations that they could not schedule a COVID-19 vaccine appointment because of state restrictions, inventory or the need for a prescription.

In 18 states and Washington, DC, pharmacists’ authority to administer vaccines is linked to the CDC’s recommendations, said Brigid Groves, the American Pharmacists Association’s vice president of professional affairs. The states are: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.

That means even though the FDA has issued its approval, in those 19 places, pharmacists cannot administer it because it isn’t on the CDC immunisation schedule yet, Groves said.

The American Pharmacists Association has asked those states’ governors to issue executive orders granting pharmacists broader authority to administer vaccines.

In the other 32 states, with some exceptions, it’s possible that a pharmacy can administer the updated COVID-19 shots for patients who fall within the FDA-approved categories of recipients.

If you are getting it “off label”, however, because you don’t have one of those underlying conditions, you might need to get it straight from your prescribing doctor.

One caveat: if ACIP votes on recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines that include giving them to healthy people through the “shared clinical decision making” process, Groves said pharmacists would be able to vaccinate almost anyone. That’s because pharmacists are considered clinicians who can conduct that shared decision-making.

Q: When might ACIP vote on COVID-19 vaccine recommendations? 

The committee has a September 18-19 meeting scheduled, according to the CDC’s website. A meeting agenda hasn’t been published yet.

Q: How will a pharmacy know if I have an underlying condition?

Typically, pharmacies ask patients to self-attest whether they have an underlying condition, Groves said. For example, a person who is under age 65 but has severe asthma would self-attest to that when making a vaccine appointment. So far, all signs point to that self-attestation still being the case.

Q: When is the best time to get vaccinated? 

During fall and winter months, when COVID-19 infections are typically expected to spike alongside other respiratory infections.

Q: What do the administration’s vaccine changes mean for future COVID-19 vaccines?

Kennedy recently cancelled $500m in funding for mRNA vaccine development. Two of the most effective COVID-19 vaccines are mRNA. Some companies had been researching combined mRNA flu and COVID-19 shots, and those projects’ status is unclear.

The FDA also recently announced that vaccine makers seeking approval for future COVID-19 vaccines, or boosters, would need to conduct new randomised clinical trials of healthy populations. That move, combined with the decision to narrow the FDA’s vaccine approval for certain segments of the population, is expected to limit COVID-19 vaccine access.

India’s Supreme Court in early August issued a dramatic order calling for the removal of all stray dogs from the streets of the national capital, prompting outrage from animal rights activists.

Days later, the country’s top court amended that order after a larger bench of judges looked at the case, effectively allowing municipal authorities to return most strays to the neighbourhoods they were picked up from after being sterilised and vaccinated.

But while the revised order has calmed some of the passions that erupted over the initial verdict, the court’s interventions have also set off a broader debate in India over dogs on the country’s streets, the menace they pose and how best to deal with them.

So what were the court orders all about, what was the trigger, how big of a problem are India’s stray dogs – and how many such dogs does the country have in the first place?

What did the Supreme Court order?

On August 11, a Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed the Delhi government and local bodies to immediately commence the removal of stray dogs from all localities in the National Capital Region – including the city of New Delhi and its suburban cities of Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad.

The court’s orders required authorities to “start picking up stray dogs from all localities” and “relocate these dogs into designated shelters/pounds”, with the stipulation that they would not be released back into public spaces again.

The ruling drew criticism from animal rights activists who questioned whether local governments had the infrastructure and resources needed to execute the order, amid worries that it could lead to acts of cruelty towards the dogs.

Some experts also pointed out that the Supreme Court order might stand in violation of India’s Animal Birth Control Rules, introduced in 2023. Those rules were framed to control stray dog populations humanely, through a policy of capturing, sterilising, vaccinating and then releasing them. But the August 11 order barred their release onto the streets of Delhi.

Eventually, amid protests, a new three-judge bench heard the case again, on August 22 and modified the earlier order. “The dogs that are picked up shall be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to the same area from which they were picked up,” the court said, staying in line with the birth control rules.

However, the court clarified that the release after capture would not “apply to the dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies, and those that display aggressive behaviour”.

Further, the court ordered the creation of dedicated feeding spaces for stray dogs in each municipal ward, making it clear that feeding dogs on the streets would now be prohibited.

And the court asked other states and federally governed territories to also join the case as parties – in effect, setting the stage for the order, currently restricted to the capital and its surrounding areas, to become a nationwide law.

Does India have a dog bite crisis?

The Supreme Court took on the case because of concerns over an increasing number of dog bite cases in the country.

According to the federal Ministry of Health data, the country recorded 2,189,909 dog bite cases in 2022, a number that rose to 3,052,521 cases in 2023, and to 3,715,713 cases in 2024.

Dog bites, similar to bites from other animals, can transmit the rabies virus to humans. When left untreated, it manifests as either furious or paralytic rabies, both of which are almost always fatal once symptoms develop. In India, dog bites account for 99 percent of rabies fatalities.

Federal Health Ministry data shows that India recorded 21, 50, and 54 rabies-induced human deaths, respectively, in the last three years. But experts question those numbers.

While federal data shows that the southern state of Kerala recorded 0,1, and 3 rabies-induced deaths in 2022, 2023 and 2024, the state’s health authorities themselves say that Kerala had 15, 17 and 22 deaths respectively, in those years. And a recent Lancet study estimated 5,726 human rabies deaths occurring annually in India.

That too is a conservative estimate, according to Omesh Bharti, deputy director and epidemiologist at the northern Himachal Pradesh state’s health department. “I think it is closer to the 10,000 mark,” Bharti said. “In the last 10 years, dog bite cases have increased 10 times. At the same time, deaths have reduced as well,” he added, because of the increased prevalence of the rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin, which provides immediate short-term protection from rabies after potential exposure.

India contributes 36 percent of global rabies deaths, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Does India have a dog-counting problem?

Nishant Kumar, head of Thinkpaws, a New Delhi-based think tank whose research focuses on the interaction between people, animals and waste systems, said that stray dogs form territorial packs.

“Bonded dogs learn to discriminate between familiar feeders and unfamiliar strangers, resulting in strategic aggression like barking or chasing to guard their streets,” he said.

“The issue arises when humans adjusted to dogs from one part of the city meet dogs in new locations, such as rickshaw pullers and delivery boys,” he added.

But questions linger over whether Delhi and India even have an accurate count of their stray dog populations.

The 2019 Livestock Census conducted by the Indian government’s Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying – the most recent nationwide stray dog count – found that India housed 15 million stray dogs, with Delhi accounting for 55,462 of them.

But the government’s own data also showed that Delhi recorded 45,052 bite cases in 2019 – a very high number of bite cases when compared with the estimated population, raising doubts about the quality of the data in question.

An unpublished study by Thinkpaws, meanwhile, assessed the dog density of the national capital region at roughly 550 dogs per square kilometre. When extrapolated across Delhi, that suggests an estimated population of 825,313 stray dogs – nearly 15 times the 2019 census data.

The 2024 Livestock Census was expected to be completed on March 31, but has been delayed.

How did Bhutan achieve 100 percent sterilisation?

The ruling by India’s top court has also prompted questions over whether all stray dogs can realistically be sterilised. While it is a tiny country by comparison, Bhutan has shown that it can be done.

In 2023, the Himalayan nation, sandwiched between India and China, became the first country in the world to achieve 100 percent sterilisation of its stray dog population. The country also vaccinated 90 percent of its 1,10,000-strong stray dog population in just two years – that’s more than the 70 percent vaccination levels needed to maintain herd immunity in the case of diseases like rabies.

Kinley Dorji, veterinary superintendent at the National Veterinary Hospital, Bhutan, who also led these efforts, said what worked was a “whole of nation” approach and the time-bound nature of the programme, which was pushed by the country’s king.

“Because the command came from our king, everybody cooperated. It was not just left to the livestock department or the municipality. Everybody from the armed forces and volunteers from De-suung [Bhutan’s national service programme] to the farmers participated,” Dorji said.

The programme was executed in three phases. “Nationwide sterilisation took just two weeks. Subsequently, the mopping phase began, targeting the dogs that had been missed during the nationwide phase. The final combing phase took us a few months, as we spent a lot of time capturing the remaining elusive dogs,” Dorji said.

The team used oral sedation, trapping and darts. Only in the heavily populated Thimphu did they have to set up separate shelters for problematic dogs that were biting people. All the other dogs were released back to the same area from which they were picked up.

The programme, which began in August 2021, was shut in October 2023, once the country achieved 100 percent stray dog sterilisation. Bhutan spent 305 million ngultrum ($3.5m) and employed 13,000 people during the programme.

What does the future look like for stray dog management in India?

India, by comparison, has a long way to go, say experts.

Bharti, the Himachal Pradesh epidemiologist, who deals with dog bite victims regularly, says the Supreme Court ruling highlights the failure of local governments and nonprofits across the country.

“They have failed to protect the citizens, and they have failed to sterilise and immunise these dogs,” he said.

Meghna Uniyal, director at the Humane Foundation for People and Animals, a nonprofit, welcomed the latest directives from the country’s top court. “We have waited two years for this,” Uniyal said. “Public feeding is now banned, and biting dogs are to be taken off the streets.”

But concerns around human-dog conflict won’t vanish in India anytime soon, said Kumar of Thinkpaws.

What’s needed, he said, is a long-term plan, including shelter-based quarantine for dogs that are known to be carrying diseases or that bite, vaccination of dogs, adoption of strays and mechanisms to reduce the practice of dogs eating from open rubbish dumps.

Anything less, he said, “is misguided compassion”.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is expected to install Jim O’Neill as acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), replacing a director who clashed with the White House over policies that defy scientific evidence.

News outlets, including The Washington Post and The Associated Press, reported O’Neill’s selection after Trump officials said they removed CDC Director Susan Monarez.

O’Neill is currently deputy to Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Sources close to Monarez have told news agencies that she butted heads with Kennedy over questions of misinformation and vaccine policy.

“She said that there were two things she would never do in the job. One was anything that was deemed illegal, and the second was anything that she felt flew in the face of science, and she said she was asked to do both of those,” Richard Besser, former acting director of the CDC, told reporters.

Several high-level CDC officials resigned from their positions in solidarity with Monarez and in defiance of what they depicted as the undermining of scientific expertise as a basis of public health policy.

Monarez said that she refused to “rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts”. She had been in her job for less than a month.

Kennedy, a prominent anti-vaccination activist before joining the Trump administration, has moved to reshape the agency and expel advisers who do not align with his views.

He purged a vaccine advisory board of its members in June, moving to replace them with individuals who share views closer to his own.

Speaking on the TV programme Fox and Friends on Thursday, Kennedy portrayed the CDC as an institute in dire need of reform.

“The  CDC has problems,” Kennedy said, accusing the centres of spreading COVID-19 “misinformation” after it advised mask wearing and social distancing.

While he did not mention Monarez by name, he argued the CDC’s culture was due for a change.

“ I cannot comment on personnel issues, but the agency is in trouble, and we need to fix it, and we are fixing it. And it may be that some people should not be working there any more,” he said.

“We need strong leadership that will go in there and that will be able to execute on President Trump’s broad ambitions.”

At Thursday’s White House news briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed the sentiment that the CDC director had to be loyal to Trump’s agenda.

“Her lawyer’s statement made it abundantly clear themselves that she was not aligned with the president’s mission to make America healthy again,” Leavitt said.

She also offered a White House account of how Monarez was allegedly fired.

“The secretary [Kennedy] asked her to resign. She said she would, and then she said she wouldn’t. So the president fired her, which he has every right to do,” Leavitt said. “It was President Trump who was overwhelmingly re-elected on November 5th. This woman has never received a vote in her life.”

But scientists and doctors who worked closely with Monarez said recent changes at the CDC undermined the agency’s mission to protect the public from health threats.

One top CDC leader who resigned this week, Demetre Daskalakis, warned that the agency’s new direction under Trump portended real risks to public health.

“I’m a doctor. I took the Hippocratic oath that said, ‘First, do no harm.’ I believe harm is going to happen, and so I can’t be a part of it,” said Daskalakis, the former director for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Tensions had been especially high within the agency over the last several weeks, after a gunman who blamed COVID-19 vaccines for his health issues attacked the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

That shooting left one police officer dead, and the suspect took his own life.

Kennedy himself has baselessly called the COVID-19 vaccine the “deadliest vaccine ever made”.

After the shooting, representatives for the CDC’s workers denounced Kennedy for contributing to public distrust of the health agency.

“This tragedy was not random, and it compounds months of mistreatment, neglect, and vilification that CDC staff have endured,” a union representing CDC employees, AFGE Local 2883, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the group Fired But Fighting, composed of laid-off employees, condemned Kennedy for “his continuous lies about science and vaccine safety, which have fueled a climate of hostility and mistrust”.

As the CDC continues to winnow down its workforce, employees also issued an open letter to Kennedy, accusing him of “terminating critical CDC workers in a destroy-first-and-ask-questions-later manner”.

Susan Monarez fired while four officials resign amid tensions over vaccine policies and public health directives.

The director of the United States’s top public health agency has been fired after less than one month in the job, and several top agency leaders have resigned.

Susan Monarez is not “aligned with” President Donald Trump’s agenda and refused to resign, so the White House terminated her, deputy press secretary Kush Desai said on Wednesday night.

The US Department of Health and Human Services had announced her departure in a brief social media post on Wednesday afternoon.

Her lawyers responded with a statement, saying Monarez had neither resigned nor been told she was fired.

“When CDC Director Susan Monarez refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda. For that, she has been targeted,” lawyers Mark Zaid and Abbe David Lowell wrote in a statement.

“This is not about one official. It is about the systematic dismantling of public health institutions, the silencing of experts, and the dangerous politicization of science. The attack on Dr Monarez is a warning to every American: our evidence-based systems are being undermined from within,” they said.

Officials resign

Her departure coincided with the resignations this week of at least four top CDC officials.

The list includes Dr Debra Houry, the agency’s deputy director; Dr Daniel Jernigan, head of the agency’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases; Dr Demetre Daskalakis, head of its National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; and Dr Jennifer Layden, director of the Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology.

In an email reported by The Associated Press, Houry lamented the effects on the agency from planned budget cuts, reorganisation and firings.

Monarez, 50, was the agency’s 21st director and the first to pass through Senate confirmation following a 2023 law. She was named acting director in January and then tapped as the nominee in March after Trump abruptly withdrew his first choice, David Weldon.

She was sworn in on July 31, less than a month ago, making her the shortest-serving CDC director in the history of the 79-year-old agency.

During her Senate confirmation process, Monarez told senators that she values vaccines, public health interventions and rigorous scientific evidence.

YOUNG people being overdiagnosed with mental health conditions has left the state at breaking point, a report warns.

Policy Exchange’s study is backed by Jeremy Hunt, who as Health Secretary in 2012 pushed to give mental health the same importance as physical health.

2

He now admits a surge in diagnoses — as parents chased support for kids — had “unintended consequences” by overwhelming the special educational needs (SEND) system.

The report says costs are “unsustainable” and seeks a radical overhaul.

Mr Hunt said: “We seem to have lost sight of the reality that child development is a messy and uneven process.”

He added that in trying to support young people there are “excessive impulses to medicalise and diagnose the routine, which can undercut grit and resilience”.

Earlier in the year, The Sun revealed that nearly one million children and young people were referred for mental health help last year.

Over 958,200 children in England were referred to Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services.

That is equal to eight per cent of England’s population of 12 million children.

And an increase of 10,000 from the previous year, according to research by the Children’s Commissioner. 

Anxiety was the most common reason, followed by neurodevelopmental conditions and autism.

Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza called for urgent action to tackle waiting times.

2

Phibro Animal Health (PAHC -1.56%), a veterinary pharmaceutical and nutrition provider, reported earnings for Q4 FY2025 on August 27, 2025, covering the three months ending June 30. Driven by its largest-ever acquisition and strong international appetite for its medicated feed additives, the company’s sales, adjusted earnings, and profit margins all surpassed expectations. GAAP revenue reached $378.7 million, up 39% from the previous year. Adjusted diluted earnings per share (EPS) climbed to $0.57 from $0.41, also beating consensus expectations. Management described the result as a step-change, reflecting both solid underlying product demand and successful integration of new product lines, though a decline in gross margin showed that rising input and distribution costs remain a concern.

Phibro Animal Health’s Business and Strategies

Phibro Animal Health manufactures and sells products that support animal health and nutrition across more than 90 countries. Its main product lines include medicated feed additives, which help prevent disease in livestock; nutritional specialty products that enhance animal health; and vaccines to combat specific animal diseases. The company’s clients include food producers, veterinarians, and animal health distributors.

Recently, Phibro has focused on expanding its reach and product portfolio through acquisitions and global growth. The October 2024 purchase of Zoetis’s medicated feed additive portfolio added 37 products and six new manufacturing sites to its business. Success in this market relies on regulatory compliance, strong product innovation, and a global presence, with about 55% of animal health sales coming from outside the United States.

Quarter Highlights: Growth, Product Mix, and Margin Trends

The quarter marked a pivotal moment for Phibro, with GAAP revenue climbing 39% compared to the prior year. The acquisition of Zoetis’s medicated feed additive (MFA) products played a central role, contributing $94.5 million in additional sales. Animal Health segment sales increased by 53%, primarily due to the Zoetis MFA acquisition. Vaccine revenues grew 21%, fueled by high demand in Latin America, while nutritional specialties posted solid gains of 11%.

Adjusted EBITDA, a measure of profit excluding both non-cash and one-off items, rose faster than revenue, up 49%, reflecting successful integration of acquired assets and improvements in operating leverage. Adjusted net income followed suit, reaching $23.2 million. Phibro’s ability to quickly benefit from the recent acquisition shows its execution on large, cross-border deals and boosts its long-term earnings potential.

Not all trends were positive, however. Gross margin, a measure of how much profit remains after covering production costs, slipped from 31.9% to 29.0% (GAAP). Management cited several causes, such as higher distribution costs, inventory write-offs, and a less favorable product mix. Despite these cost pressures, adjusted gross margin for the full fiscal year rose slightly, showing that the cost impact was most pronounced in the fourth quarter.

Looking at the company’s broader portfolio, Mineral Nutrition sales (GAAP) inched up 3%, while Performance Products rose 13%. Mineral Nutrition and Performance Products Adjusted EBITDA increased $4.4 million and $2.9 million, respectively, with Mineral Nutrition’s adjusted EBITDA up 4% and Performance Products by 38%. Free cash flow was $41.8 million, just below the previous period. Phibro maintained its quarterly dividend at $0.12 per share, continuing a stable return to shareholders.

Business Segments and Drivers: Product Lines Explained

The company’s core Animal Health segment is built on three main product lines: medicated feed additives (medicines delivered in animal feed), nutritional specialties (products that enhance animal health and growth), and vaccines (biological products to prevent livestock disease). The recent strength in this segment has been driven mostly by medicated feed additives, especially the new Zoetis-acquired products, which led to a 77% year-over-year jump in sales for this line. Vaccines saw demand rise due to success in international poultry markets.

Mineral Nutrition products supply trace minerals like copper and zinc, important for healthy livestock. Growth here was modest but steady, driven by broader demand for feed minerals. Performance Products comprise specialty chemicals used in industrial applications, rounding out Phibro’s diversified offerings. Each of these areas supports the company’s efforts to reduce dependence on any single customer group or geographic market.

Financial Outlook and What to Watch

For FY2026, management expects continued double-digit growth. Guidance points to net sales between $1.43 billion and $1.48 billion, representing about 12% projected growth. Adjusted EBITDA is anticipated to rise 25%. This outlook reflects management’s confidence in continued growth across all segments.

Investors should watch margin trends closely. The drop in quarterly GAAP gross margin, if it continues, could signal sustained cost or mix pressures. Free cash flow and leverage levels are also important to monitor, as integration and expansion require capital, and gross leverage ended the year at 3.1x. Management made no notable changes to its dividend policy, with a quarterly payout of $0.12 per share continuing as before.

Revenue and net income presented using U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) unless otherwise noted.

A FORMER Strictly Come Dancing star revealed signing up for the show was a ‘big mistake’ – having quit due to health struggles.

Comedian and actor Robert Webb was part of the BBC show’s 2021 line-up, partnered with Dianne Buswell.

4

4

4

The 52-year-old pulled out of Strictly after three dances, on health grounds.

Previously, the comedian had undergone open heart surgery back in 2019.

Speaking to The Times, Robert reflected that he’d accepted the Strictly offer as “these opportunities don’t come along very often.”

He said: “They don’t happen to everyone.

“And I’d just nearly died, so I thought, “This is no time to be sitting on the edges; why don’t you contribute and participate?”

“It all sounded like a good idea at the time.”

Robert added: “It all added up to a big mistake.”

Although he was in “quite good shape” on paper, the star struggled with Strictly’s intense schedule.

He explained: “That schedule is a law unto itself, and I just wasn’t anywhere close to being able to do that.

“I don’t even know if I could now. I don’t think it’d be a very good idea.”

Robert said in a statement at the time of his exit: “I’m extremely sorry to have to announce that I’m withdrawing from Strictly Come Dancing due to ill health.

“Two years ago I had open heart surgery and although I believed I was fit enough to take on Strictly and its demanding schedule, it became clear that I had bitten off way more than I could chew for this stage in my recovery.

“I had begun to feel symptoms that led me to seek an urgent consultation with my heart specialist, and it was her view that it would be better for the sake of my health to step back from the show.”

Actress Rose Ayling-Ellis – then starring in EastEnders – went on to win that year’s series.

Robert is best known for working with David Mitchell as comedy duo Mitchell and Webb,

Earlier this year, The Sun told how the duo are reuniting for a new sketch comedy series.

Joining them are Ghosts actor Kiell Smith-Bynoe, as well as comedians Lara Ricote, Stevie Martin and Kystral Evans.

Strictly Come Dancing airs on BBC One and iPlayer.

4

Regulation of psilocybin — the “magic” substance in psychedelic mushrooms — has been a hot-button issue for Californians in recent years, but repeated attempts by state lawmakers to allow medical use of the substance have floundered.

Now it seems change may come at the federal level.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is weighing a petition sent earlier this month by the Drug Enforcement Administration to review the scientific evidence and consider easing restrictions.

Psilocybin is currently classified as a Schedule I narcotic, the most restrictive category under federal law, reserved for drugs “with a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use.” The DEA is considering moving psilocybin into the less restrictive Schedule II tier, which includes drugs that are considered addictive or dangerous — including fentanyl and cocaine — but also have medical value.

Past efforts to allow for therapeutic use of psilocybin have largely stalled in the face of official intransigence and lack of political will, including in California, where state lawmakers’ efforts to decriminalize psilocybin and other psychedelic substances have failed multiple times.

Despite strict prohibition under both state and federal law, psilocybin is widely available and growing in popularity for both recreational and therapeutic purposes.

Illegal cannabis dispensaries across Southern California openly sell actual psilocybin mushrooms, as well as dodgy chocolates and gummies that often purport to contain the substance but instead contain only synthetic versions. In recent decades, a growing body of research has found that psilocybin can be beneficial in treating mental health conditions including depression, anxiety and substance use disorder.

The issue of psychedelic access is high on the agenda of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s controversial and conspiracy-minded secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has signaled support in the past for expanding access to some hallucinogens in medical settings for treatment of mental health disorders.

Kennedy’s agency directed all inquiries to the DEA, which said in an email that it is “unable to comment on or confirm scheduling actions.”

The DEA sent the psilocybin petition after a drawn-out legal battle led by Dr. Sunil Aggarwal. For about five years, Aggarwal, co-director of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute in Seattle, has been seeking a means to legally obtain and administer psilocybin to ailing and aging patients for care during the final phases of their lives.

Kathryn L. Tucker, a lawyer for Aggarwal, wrote a letter to the DEA this month that said he “continues to provide care to patients with advanced and terminal cancer who could benefit greatly from psilocybin assisted therapy, enabling them to experience a more peaceful dying process.”

“The science supports movement to schedule II; such placement will enable access under Right to Try laws, which contemplate early access to promising new drugs for those with life-threatening conditions,” Tucker wrote.

Aggarwal filed a lawsuit after his 2020 petition to reschedule psilocybin was denied. A federal panel dismissed the suit, but the move toward rescheduling continues now that the DEA has officially forwarded his petition to the Department of Health and Human Services.

But some researchers and other experts caution against moving too fast to expand access.

Dr. Steven Locke, a former Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor, wrote in an email that the question of whether psilocybin has any medical applications “remains controversial.” A past president of the American Psychosomatic Society, Locke has studied rare conditions such as Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder, which cause symptoms akin to long-lasting “bad trips” in a small percentage of people who use psilocybin mushrooms and other psychedelics.

“There is little evidence from good-quality studies to support claims for the efficacy of the use of psilocybin for the treatment of any medical disorders,” said Locke. “The reclassification should be contingent on a careful review.”

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court said Thursday the Trump administration may cancel hundreds of health research grants that involve diversity, equity and inclusion or gender identity.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and set aside a Boston’s judge order that blocked the canceling of $783 million in research grants.

The justices split 5-4. Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined the court’s three liberals in dissent and said the district judge had not overstepped his authority.

The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with the administration and against federal judges in disputes over spending and staffing at federal agencies.

In the latest case, the majority agreed that Trump and his appointees may decide on how to spend health research funds allocated by Congress.

Upon taking office in January, Trump issued an executive order “ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.”

A few weeks later, the acting director of the National Institutes of Health said the agency would no longer fund “low-value and off-mission research programs, including but not limited to studies based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and gender identity.”

More than 1,700 grants were canceled.

Trump’s lawyers told the court NIH had terminated grants to study “Buddhism and HIV stigma in Thailand”; “intersectional, multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations”; and “anti-racist healing in nature to protect telomeres of transitional age BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] for health equity.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his counterparts from 15 Democratic-led states had sued to halt what they called an “unprecedented disruption to ongoing research.” They were joined by groups of researchers and public health advocates.

The state attorneys said their public universities were using grant money for “projects investigating heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, alcohol and substance abuse, mental-health issues, and countless other health conditions.”

They said NIH had terminated a grant for a University of California study examining how inflammation, insulin resistance, and physical activity affect Alzheimer’s disease in Black women, a group with higher rates and a more aggressive profile of the disease.

Also terminated they said was a University of Hawaiʻi study that aimed to identify genetic and biological risk factors for colorectal cancer among Native Hawaiians, a population with increased incidence and mortality rates of that disease.

In June, the Democratic state attorneys won a ruling from U.S. District Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee. He said the sudden halt to research grants violated a federal procedural law because it was “arbitrary” and poorly explained.

He said Trump had required agencies “to focus on eradicating anything that it labels as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”), an undefined enemy.” He said he had tried and failed to get a clear definition of DEI and what it entailed.

When the 1st Circuit Court refused to lift the judge’s order, Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court in late July.

He noted the justices in April had set aside a similar decision from a Boston-based judge who blocked the new administration’s canceling of education grants.

The solicitor general argued that Trump’s order rescinded an executive order from President Biden in 2021 that mandated “an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda” and instructed federal agencies to “allocate resources to address the historic failure to invest sufficiently, justly, and equally in underserved communities.”

He said the new administration decided these DEI-related grants “do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”

The Trump administration has canceled a sexual education grant to California worth about $12.3 million on the grounds that it included “radical gender ideology” after state officials refused to revise the materials.

The funding helps pay for sex education programs in juvenile justice facilities, homeless shelters and foster care group homes, as well as some schools, reaching an estimated 13,000 youths per year through 20 agencies.

State officials did not have an immediate response Thursday morning to the federal announcement, which was linked to a 60-day compliance deadline.

“California’s refusal to comply with federal law and remove egregious gender ideology from federally funded sex-ed materials is unacceptable,” said Acting Assistant Secretary Andrew Gradison, of the Administration for Children and Families. “The Trump Administration will not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to indoctrinate children. Accountability is coming for every state that uses federal funds to teach children delusional gender ideology.”

State officials had taken the position that its materials are accurate and did not violate the terms of the federal grant.

California is not being accused of failing to carry out the abstinence and contraception instruction funded by the grant. Rather, the state has included additional content that the Trump administration defines as objectionable and “outside the scope” of the grant’s purpose.

A June 20 letter to a senior California official cited, as one of several examples, sample wording from a middle school lesson:

“We’ve been talking during class about messages people get on how they should act as boys and girls — but as many of you know, there are also people who don’t identify as boys or girls, but rather as transgender or gender queer. This means that even if they were called a boy or a girl at birth and may have body parts that are typically associated with being a boy or a girl, on the inside, they feel differently.”

The California Department of Public Health responded in an Aug. 19 letter that it “will not make any such modifications at this time” because its materials already had been approved by the same agency that is now demanding change. In addition, officials described the materials as “medically accurate” and relevant to the instructional goals. California also challenged whether the Trump administration had authority to cancel the grant in this manner.

The amount of money at stake is small compared with other issues that are being litigated between California and the Trump administration, but the dispute embodies now-familiar legal parameters that have resulted in more than three dozen lawsuits.

The grant cancellation also represents another front in the conflict between the Trump administration and California related to LGBTQ+ issues. These culture war-fueled disputes date back substantially to Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order that recognized two sexes, male and female, a dictum that has moved across all departments under his jurisdiction.

In youth sports, this divide has unfolded with Trump threatening to withhold vast sums of federal funding unless California bars transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports.

California has responded by creating dual-award categories for women’s sporting events, so that the success of a trans athlete, in a track-and-field competition for example, would not prevent another athlete from winning an award. The compromise does not address the issue of trans athletes in women’s team sports, such as volleyball.

The Trump administration does not accept these steps taken by California as compliance with its directives.

Within the classroom, the Trump policy opposes curriculum that allows for more than a binary — male or female — expression of gender. Historically, federal authority over local curriculum has been limited, but Trump has been quick to use federal funding as leverage.

In this case, it’s the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that has been applying pressure.

The children and families department administers a grant program that annually distributes $75 million nationally “to educate adolescents on … both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS,” according to federal statute.

For a three-year period, through the next fiscal year, California has been allotted funding worth more than $18.2 million, according to Health and Human Services. Under the federal decision, the state is expected to lose $12.3 million that it has not yet received, covering multiple years.

The federal grant supports the California Personal Responsibility Education Program, or CA PREP, which provides “comprehensive sexual health education to adolescents via effective, evidence-based or evidence-informed program models,” according to a statement from the state.

“Data show that participants who completed CA PREP had a better understanding of sexual and reproductive health topics and improved health outcomes,” the health department stated.

The Trump administration does not deny that the federal government had previously approved the California materials, but said the Biden administration “erred in allowing PREP grants to be used to teach students gender ideology.”

California law requires school districts to provide students with comprehensive sexual health education, along with information about HIV prevention, at least once in high school and once in middle school.

The Trump administration has asserted complete authority over federal grants, including those in progress. Many of its grant cancellations are being challenged in court. Some have been allowed to take effect; others have been blocked. In some instances, Congress has narrowly approved grant cancellations, including for foreign aid and to support the public broadcasting network.

Mourners in Italy held a funeral for 19-year-old Marah Abu Zuhri, who had been evacuated from Gaza for urgent medical care. Doctors tried to save her but she died two days after her arrival, severely malnourished, as a result of Israel’s deliberate starvation of Palestinians.

Some 750 federal health employees signed the letter two weeks after a gunman fired 180 bullets into CDC buildings.

Hundreds of federal health employees have written to United States Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, imploring him to “stop spreading inaccurate health information”, weeks after a gunman fired hundreds of bullets into the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

Signatories to the letter on Wednesday, including hundreds of current HHS staff, accused Kennedy of “sowing public mistrust by questioning the integrity and morality of CDC’s workforce”, including by calling the public health agency a “cesspool of corruption”, during his 2024 failed presidential election campaign.

They also said that Kennedy’s policies, including cuts to thousands of HHS employees, were creating “dangerous gaps in areas like infectious diseases detection, worker safety, and chronic disease prevention and response”.

“The deliberate destruction of trust in America’s public health workforce puts lives at risk,” the workers said, noting that Kennedy had spread false claims about the measles vaccine, undermining the public health outbreak response to the disease.

They also noted that the recent attack on the CDC building was another example of the dangers resulting from the health secretary’s words.

The shooter, who had publicly expressed his distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, opened fire at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, fatally shooting police officer David Rose, 33, before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on August 8.

In a statement shared with US media outlets, the HHS said that “Secretary Kennedy is standing firmly with CDC employees – both on the ground and across every center – ensuring their safety and wellbeing remain a top priority”.

Kennedy has long been accused of spreading vaccine misinformation, including in a 2019 visit to Samoa, which came months before a measles outbreak on the South Pacific island which killed 81 people, mostly babies and young children.

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper earlier this year, Samoa’s prime minister, Fiame Naomi Mataʻafa, expressed surprise that Kennedy, who denies being against vaccines, was chosen as US health secretary.

More recently, Kennedy has cancelled hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for research into mRNA vaccines, a medical breakthrough credited with preventing millions of deaths from COVID-19 and having the potential to treat diseases such as cancer and HIV, according to the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

William Foege, who served as the director of the CDC from 1977 to 1983, penned an article in US health outlet Stat News this week, urging public health workers to “not back down”.

“We will live through this drought of values, principles, and facts and again apply our talents to improving global health and happiness,” he wrote.

Foege, who has been credited with playing an instrumental role in eradicating smallpox, a virus that was fatal in 30 percent of cases, went on to warn that Kennedy’s words were dangerous.

“In the meantime, be clear. Kennedy’s words can be as lethal as the smallpox virus. Americans deserve better,” he wrote.

TV star Sam Faiers has sparked controversy after advising her sister Billie to explore holistic options before going ahead with her young son’s tonsil removal.

Sam Faiers has come under fire after suggesting her sister Billie consider alternative health approaches instead of scheduling her son’s tonsillectomy.

In a scene from their show Sister Act, Billie explains that her eight-year-old son Arthur is set to have his tonsils removed after repeated illness. “Arthur is getting his tonsils out. He had tonsillitis I’d say six times last year, and it made him so poorly,” she says.

“When the doctor looked at them, straight away he said to me ‘nah… they are really, really unhealthy tonsils.” She adds: “But tonsils serve no purpose in your body.” It comes after Sam’s heartache after cruel thieves stole her late grandmother’s precious wedding ring.

READ MORE: Ulrika Jonsson slams Andy Carroll for leaving ex Billi Mucklow to care for his five kidsREAD MORE: TOWIE star Ricky Rayment’s heartbreak as he announces his sister has died

Sam, who later says she leans toward holistic health, disagrees with the decision and encourages testing for allergies first. “Everything in your body serves a purpose,” she argues.

“When you’re not well and something inflames in your body or your tonsils are raised or your hair is falling out, or you’ve got a rash, it’s because your body is telling you something isn’t right.

“So it’s Arthur’s body’s way of telling him I’ve got an allergy, or you know, I’ve got a virus and that’s his way. So when they’re out, how else is his body going to tell you that something is wrong?”

Billie responds, agreeing that “he has some kind of allergy or intolerance.” However, Sam’s comments prompted backlash online, with critics accusing her of spreading misinformation.

One viewer wrote: “She’s no doctor and shouldn’t be allowed to give advice that’s dangerous.” Another labelled her “Mrs Know It All.”

Another user shared a personal warning as they wrote: “Don’t ever mess about waiting for tonsils out… I was rushed into hospital because it made me so ill. I’ve had fibromyalgia for 15 years, and now severe arthritis. I wish I could dream everything be OK with positivity or a cream or holistic, but life’s not like that.”

Earlier this summer, Sam also came under fire for controversial comments she made about sun cream. The reality star took to social media to reveal she doesn’t get her children to wear sun cream.

The former TOWIE star explained that her kids have “built up a really good tolerance to being in the sun” as she made wild claims about sunscreen having “pretty harmful and full of toxic ingredients” in, which has been discredited by a skin doctor.

In a lengthy post shared on social media, she wrote: “So this is always a bit of a controversial one, but honestly, me and my whole family don’t actually wear sunscreen. Over the years, the kids have built up a really good tolerance to being in the sun.

“Of course if it’s really hot and the sun feels too harsh I’ll make sure we head into the shade… usually around lunchtime we’ll go in, have something to eat and just avoid those peak hours.”

She then went on to add: “I’m really careful about sunscreen in general, because a lot of them are actually pretty harmful and full of toxic ingredients. If you do want to protect your kids, I think SPF swimwear is such a good and safer option.

“But also, don’t be afraid of the sun! Early in the morning or later in the afternoon when it’s not as strong, I love letting the kids run around and soak it up, it’s good for them. That said, I do always bring a Tallow Zinc SPF with me when I go away, just in case. And hats or caps are a must! Especially for us ladies because no one wants extra sun damage.”

The comments were later heavily criticised by a skin doctor.

The Mirror has approached Sam’s representatives for comment on this story.

Follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads.

READ MORE: Shop Dani Dyer’s butter yellow midi dress as she announces Strictly news on The One Show

THERE are fears for a Thai princess after the royal palace shared a concerning health update following her three-year-long coma battle.

Princess Bajrakitiyabha Mahidol, the eldest daughter of King Vajiralongkorn, is said to have developed a severe infection.

5

5

5

The 46-year-old, affectionately known as Princess Bha, collapsed in December, 2022, while training her dogs in Nakhon Ratchasima, northeast of Bangkok.

She has been in a coma ever since.

The Bureau of the Royal Household gave the first update on her condition in more than two years on Friday, saying she had suffered a “severe” blood infection.

The palace said in a following update that a team of doctors were closely monitoring her situation.

It read: “The medical team said that she remains in a state of low blood pressure, requiring continuous treatment.

“Doctors are administering medication to stabilise her blood pressure, along with medical equipment and antibiotics to support kidney function and breathing.”

Over the years, some reports have suggested her health condition is far more serious than the palace is letting on.

Princess Bajrakitiyabha was training her dogs at a working dog championship organised by the Thaiarmy when she collapsed.

Paramedics rushed her to a nearby hospital before a helicopter took her to Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn health facility.

Bajrakitiyabha is the daughter of the king’s first wife, Princess Soamsawali.

She has been part of her father’s inner circle since he came to the throne in 2016 and is a senior officer in the king’s personal guard.

The fitness enthusiast is widely viewed as the most suitable successor for her father, who turned 70 this year.

She has post-graduate law degrees from two US universities and has long called for prison reforms in Thailand.

She was also the Thai ambassador to Austria between 2012 and 2014.

The 73-year-old king, who has seven children from four marriages, has not announced his chosen heir.

Though succession rules in Thailand favour men.

5

5

The sackings come as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr pushes to significantly downsize department.

At least 600 employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States are receiving permanent termination notices in the wake of a recent court decision that protected some CDC employees from layoffs but not others.

The notices went out this week, and many people have not yet received them, according to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents more than 2,000 dues-paying members at CDC.

The CDC played a crucial role in gathering data and setting health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The terminations come months after Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr announced efforts to let go of 20,000 employees, downsizing the department by more than 20 percent.

AFGE officials said they are aware of at least 600 employees being cut.

But “due to a staggering lack of transparency from HHS”, the union hasn’t received formal notices about who is being laid off, the federation said in a statement on Wednesday.

The permanent cuts include about 100 people who worked in violence prevention. Some employees noted that those cuts came less than two weeks after a man fired at least 180 bullets into the CDC’s campus and killed a police officer.

“The irony is devastating: The very experts trained to understand, interrupt and prevent this kind of violence were among those whose jobs were eliminated,” some of the affected employees wrote in a blog post last week.

The post called on Kennedy and other health officials to recognise the “shortsightedness of these reductions”.

“Protect the people who protect the public. The safety of our communities, our colleagues and our country depends on it,” it said.

On April 1, the HHS officials sent layoff notices to thousands of employees at the CDC and other federal health agencies, part of a sweeping overhaul designed to vastly shrink the agencies responsible for protecting and promoting Americans’ health.

Many have been on administrative leave since then — paid but not allowed to work — as lawsuits played out.

A federal judge in Rhode Island last week issued a preliminary ruling that protected employees in several parts of the CDC, including groups dealing with smoking, reproductive health, environmental health, workplace safety, birth defects and sexually transmitted diseases.

But the ruling did not protect other CDC employees, and layoffs are being finalized across other parts of the agency, including in the freedom of information office. The terminations were effective as of Monday, employees were told.

Affected projects included work to prevent rape, child abuse and teen dating violence. The laid-off staff included people who have helped other countries to track violence against children — an effort that helped give rise to an international conference in November at which countries talked about setting violence-reduction goals.