Why does Russia send so many ships through the Channel? What does a ‘feminist’ approach to cancer involve? And who is Mickey’s new boss?

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

A podcast for curious, open-minded people, The Week Unwrapped delivers fresh perspectives on politics, culture, technology and business. It makes for a lively, enlightening discussion, ranging from the serious to the offbeat. Previous topics have included whether solar engineering could refreeze the Arctic, why funerals are going out of fashion, and what kind of art you can use to pay your tax bill.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

Three-quarters of people diagnosed with cancer will survive for five years or more by 2035, if a new national cancer plan for NHS England meets its target.

A person is diagnosed with cancer in the UK at least every 75 seconds, according to cancer charity Macmillan, so the plan announced by the government this week will impact millions.

What is the plan?

England’s first national cancer plan was published in 2000. It introduced targets for waiting times, but those have been missed for more than a decade. Ahead of unveiling the new scheme, ministers have been studying the situation and progress in Denmark. In 2000, both countries had similar survival rates, but Denmark has since “leapfrogged ahead, outperforming the UK in survival rates for all but one major cancers”, said The Times.

The result is a 10-year strategy for the UK covering cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and research. Some 11,000 people responded to the call for evidence, offering “stories of resilience against the odds” and “personal battles against a healthcare system buckling under the cancer burden”, said health correspondent Ashish Joshi on Sky News.

How will it improve outcomes?

If the plan hits its targets, by 2035, three out of four people diagnosed with the disease will be “living well” with their cancer under control or cancer-free within five years of diagnosis. The Department of Health said this would represent the fastest rate of improvement in cancer outcomes this century, and would translate to 320,000 more lives saved over the lifetime of the plan.

It also pledges that NHS England will meet all its cancer waiting-time targets by 2029. There will be a major expansion in robot-assisted surgery, with the number of such procedures increasing from 70,000 currently to half a million by 2035, and faster diagnostic tests to shorten delays in diagnosis and treatment, with community-based diagnostic centres operating 12 hours a day, seven days a week where possible.

The plan also aims to cover travel costs for people seeking treatment across the country, so families do not have to face the financial burden of transportation to access the most appropriate treatment.

What has the reaction been?

Outcomes in England have “lagged behind comparable countries for decades”, said Cancer Research UK, so it’s positive to see improving survival rates at “the centre of the plan”. However, meeting such ambitious targets will require “much faster progress” alongside additional detail on the implementation of the commitments made, where responsibilities will lie, and “whether bold promises will be matched with the resources required”.

The promise that the national cancer plan will “revolutionise the way we treat cancer” is both “bold and ambitious”, said Joshi on Sky News, but then the strategy “cannot afford to be anything else”.

If you’re one of the many starting this New Year with plans for a cleaner, healthier lifestyle, maybe dosing up on vitamins is on your resolution roster?

You’d be in good company: UK sales of vitamin or mineral supplements were forecast to reach £559 million by the end of 2025, according to market research firm Mintel. But, despite the popularity of these supplements, the scientific evidence about their health benefits is mixed.

Why do people take vitamin supplements?

Vitamins and minerals are essential for our health but they are nutrients our bodies can’t produce on their own – so we must get them from our food, most commonly in the form of leafy green vegetables, fruit, whole-grains, nuts, dairy and lean proteins.

But our increasing reliance on ultra-processed food means many of us may not be getting these nutrients from what we eat: fewer than 17% of UK adults meet the recommended daily intake of five fruit or vegetable portions a day, according to the Department of Health’s latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey.

Vitamin and mineral supplements, sold either individually or as a multivitamin, are designed to provide us with the essential nutrients we may be missing out on. Multivitamins vary in composition by brand but usually combine vitamin A, several B vitamins, vitamins C, D, E and K with minerals such as calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, iodine, copper, selenium, copper, manganese, potassium and chromium.

What does the science say?

Can vitamin and mineral supplements really fill that nutrient gap? The answer, “as you might expect, is complicated”, said Jasmin Fox-Skelly on BBC Future. Clinical trials have had “contradictory results”, and “suggest that whether you will benefit from taking vitamin supplements depends on who you are, as well as the exact micronutrient the supplement contains”.

NHS advice is that, “in most cases”, taking supplements is “not necessary” because most people can get the essential nutrients they need from “eating a healthy, varied and balanced diet”.

Some specific groups may benefit, however. Children aged six months to five years are advised to take a daily supplement containing vitamins A, C and D; pregnant women should take vitamin B9 (folic acid) for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy; pregnant and breastfeeding women should take vitamin D daily, and vegans and vegetarians may benefit from taking a vitamin B12 supplement (B12 is almost exclusively found in animal-based foods).

Those over the age of 65 may need extra vitamins D and B12. And there is some evidence to show that, for older people, a daily dose of multivitamins can boost mental and physical function. A US trial, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that they improved memory and cognition in a group of over 60-year-olds and, in a long-running health study of men over 50, published in JAMA, they “modestly but significantly” reduced the risk of cancer.

Are there any risks?

Yes. “Mega-dosing” – taking large amounts of a particular vitamin – can be very harmful. People who have taken too much vitamin D, for example, have been taken to hospital with seizures, which, in some cases, have led to coma or death. Excess vitamin A can cause severe headaches, blurred vision and problems with co-ordination. And huge doses of vitamin C (once erroneously thought to stave off colds) can stomach upset, diarrhoea and, in extreme cases, kidney stones.

It’s also worth knowing that many single vitamin supplements “lack regulation, contain unlisted ingredients, and are not backed up by randomised controlled trials – the gold standard of medical research”, said Fox-Skelly on BBC Future.

Big-brand multivitamins, however, are generally pretty safe and designed to deliver only the recommended daily allowance of each vitamin and mineral, so taking them daily is not risky, said JoAnn Manson, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. For most adults, eating a healthy, balanced diet should provide us with all the nutrients we need but I think if anyone’s worried that their diet isn’t healthy enough, “then taking a multivitamin could be a form of insurance”.

The Covid-19 shot may have further-reaching benefits than previously thought, as mRNA vaccines appear to help increase the effectiveness of immunotherapy in cancer patients. Widespread use of the vaccine could lead to better medical outcomes for thousands, while still being low-cost and easily accessible.

A jab at cancer treatment

Covid-19 mRNA vaccines could help boost the immune system to fight off cancer, according to a study published in the journal Nature. The study looked at the clinical outcomes for over 1,000 patients with late-stage melanoma or lung cancer who were treated with a form of immunotherapy called immune checkpoint inhibitors. This is a “common approach doctors use to train the immune system to kill cancer” by “blocking a protein that tumor cells make to turn off immune cells, enabling the immune system to continue killing cancer,” the authors of the study said at The Conversation. The findings showed that “patients who received either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccine within 100 days of starting immunotherapy were more than twice as likely to be alive after three years compared with those who didn't receive either vaccine.”

While those undergoing cancer treatment are more susceptible to contracting viruses like Covid-19, the extended lifespan was attributed to the mRNA in the vaccine, which appeared to “help the immune system respond better to the cutting-edge cancer treatment,” according to The Associated Press. “We are really tapping into that natural process that your body already knows how to respond to,” Jeff Coller, a professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins Medicine, said to NBC News. “You are using your body’s natural system to fight tumors.”

Another shot

“This data is incredibly exciting,” Adam Grippin, the lead author of the study, said to The Washington Post. “But it needs to be confirmed in a Phase III clinical trial.” The researchers hope that if the upcoming clinical trial confirms their findings, “this widely available, low-cost intervention could extend the benefits of immunotherapy to millions of patients who otherwise would not benefit from this therapy,” said the study authors. This is not the first time mRNA vaccines have been used to treat cancer, either. Scientists have “developed personalized mRNA cancer vaccines that are tailored to fight a person’s unique tumor, as well as ones that target genes that are commonly found in certain types of cancer, including pancreatic,” said NBC News.

Unlike other vaccine therapies, Covid-19 mRNA vaccines do not “need to be personalized” and “could be administered at any time during a patient’s treatment,” said the study authors. Despite this, the Trump administration has been openly wary of mRNA vaccines and vaccines in general. The administration “terminated 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data showed they failed to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like Covid,” said the Department of Health and Human Services in a recent statement to the Post.

A fatal fungus once thought to be a curse could potentially help fight disease. Scientists discovered molecules in a fungus linked to Tutankhamun's tomb that stop the proliferation of cancer cells and are as effective as currently used treatments. Fungi may hold a treasure trove of medical breakthroughs ready to be unearthed.

Treatment from beyond the grave

The "pharaoh's curse" fungus, Aspergillus flavus, can be used to fight leukemia, according to a study published in the journal Nature Chemical Biology. The fungus is called "pharaoh's curse" because it is "linked to the deaths of several archeologists who opened ancient tombs around the world, including the famous discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamun in the 1920s," said Popular Mechanics. At the time, many believed the deaths to be the result of an ancient curse rather than fungal inhalation.

Aspergillus flavus is known as a "microbial villain," said Popular Science. It is "one of the most frequently isolated mold species in both agriculture and medicine" and is "commonly found in soil and can infect a broad range of important agricultural crops." Exposure to the fungus can lead to lung infections, especially in those who are immunocompromised. Despite its deadly reputation, the fungus contains a class of peptides that can fight cancer when modified.

Researchers were able to isolate four molecules from A. flavus, which they named "asperigimycins." The molecules were capable of forming a unique structure of interlocking rings. "Even without genetic modifications, the asperigimycins demonstrated medical potential when mixed together with human cancer cells," said Popular Science. "Two out of the four variants had potent effects against leukemia cells." When fatty molecules called lipids were added, the asperigimycins were as effective as the FDA-approved drugs used to treat the cancer. There also seem to be no apparent side effects from A. flavus.

Fungus among us

Asperigimycins are part of a class of molecules called ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptides, or RiPPs. A number of them have been found in bacteria, but they are "rare in fungi and notoriously hard to study," said Wired. This is "mainly because no one was looking closely until now." However, "even though only a few have been found, almost all of them have strong bioactivity," Qiuyue Nie, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania and an author of the study, said in a statement. "This is an unexplored region with tremendous potential."

Fungi have long been a source of medicine, perhaps most famously the antibiotic penicillin. This research implies there is more where that came from. "Nature has given us this incredible pharmacy," Sherry Gao, an associate professor at UPenn and the senior author of the study, said in the statement. "It's up to us to uncover its secrets. As engineers, we're excited to keep exploring, learning from nature and using that knowledge to design better solutions." The next step will be to test the newly discovered treatment on animals and then eventually on humans. It will likely still be many years before the treatments can be widely used on people.

Scientists fighting the ever-growing threat posed by antibiotic-resistant 'superbugs' are increasingly confident that they might have found a solution – in pills of poo. And, if preliminary trials are successful, these poo pills could even play a role in recovery from cancer and depression, too.

What are 'poo pills' and how do they work?

Poo pills contain carefully screened, freeze-dried faeces samples, taken from healthy donors, that are packed with "good bacteria". Once taken by a patient whose guts have been colonised with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the pills dissolve and the "good bacteria" flush out the "bad bacteria", stopping them from lurking in the patient's bowel and potentially escaping elsewhere in the body to cause extremely hard to treat infections.

A recent, small-scale trial, published in the Journal of Infection, showed "really promising signals" that the poo pills could get rid of the superbugs altogether or "reduce them down to a level that doesn't cause problems", said study lead Dr Blair Merrick, of Guy's and St Thomas's Hospital, London.

The idea of a poo pill "isn't as far-fetched as it might seem", said the BBC. Faecal transplants (sometimes called "trans-poo-tion") are already approved in the UK for treatment of adults who have had repeated episodes of infection by Clostridium difficile – a bacteria that can cause severe diarrhoea and is notoriously resistant to most antibiotics. These transplants are often delivered via enema, colonoscopy or naso-gastric tube but pills are sometimes used instead.

How big a problem are superbugs?

'Superbug' is a term used for different strains of bacteria that have developed resistance to most known antibiotics – mainly because we have misused and overused these antibiotics over the years.

The main superbugs include MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), VRE (vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus), Clostridium difficile, and the bacteria that cause multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Resistance to antibiotics has led to at least 1 million deaths globally since 1990, according to a study by the Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance Project published last year in The Lancet. Increasing rates of drug-resistant infections are expected to claim more than 39 million lives between now and 2050.

"It's very scary," England's former chief medical officer Sally Davies told The Guardian last year. Now the UK's special envy for antimicrobial resistance, she said "some people talk about it being a pandemic – it is. It's pretty awful." Certainly, according to a National Audit Office report earlier this year, the UK "remains a long way" from its goal of containing, controlling and mitigating it.

Could poo pills fight other diseases?

There are several studies being carried out on other uses for faecal transplants, including for treating cancer and mental health issues.

Researchers have begun "wondering if altering these microbial populations" could make cancer tumours "more receptive to existing treatment options", said Popular Science. In Canada, a two-year poo pill trial has just started on a small group of pancreatic cancer patients.

Also in Canada, researchers at the University of Calgary, intrigued by studies suggesting that altering the gut microbiome can improve signalling between the gut and the brain, have began a trial to see if poo pills can reduce the effects of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

But some new research is suggesting faecal transplants can alter the intestinal environment in less helpful ways, said The Independent. Studies on mice, published in Cell, showed shifts in liver metabolism and the genes involved in immune function. The study author recognise the advances faecal transplants promise but advise caution in developing future treatments.

The 2024 elections were defined for many by damning allegations that then-President Joe Biden was not only experiencing mental and physical decline, but that his inner circle was obfuscating the true severity of his health challenges. As Democrats eye a return to the White House in 2028, those allegations have resurfaced — this time haunting a party split over how to regain voters' trust. While some have advocated for a full postmortem to enable the party to move on once and for all, others insist the Democrats should focus on the future without relitigating the past.

'Renewed questions' are 'sending shivers' through the party

Democrats face a "fresh reckoning" over Biden's health, with "potential presidential contenders" avoiding debate on whether the party should have "forcefully called on him to abandon his reelection bid earlier," said Politico. Whether or not to criticize Biden or to address his camp's insistence that he was fit for campaigning is "fast becoming the first real litmus test of the 2028" race, given how many Democrats "with 2028 ambitions" were "defending him at the time."

The upcoming publication of "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again" by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson has contributed to the "renewed questions" about who knew what about Biden's health when, "sending shivers" through the party, said The Washington Post. To "regain the trust of voters," some have argued that party leaders must "state openly that Biden should never have sought reelection" last year.

That Democratic Party leadership has been "unwilling to reckon publicly" with supporting Biden's campaign "for as long as it did" suggests a "lasting fear of speaking out," said The New York Times. There is an awareness among some that by speaking out against Biden's 2024 fitness now, they have exposed themselves to "questions about why they said nothing when it mattered."

"We're not looking backward," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said of rehashing Biden's health at a press conference last week. "We're looking forward at this moment in time."

Not just about Biden

While backward-looking "self-flagellations" by Democrats are often "excessive and pointless," in this case they are "needed," said Michael Tomasky at The New Republic. It's necessary not only for unpacking who may have inappropriately protected Biden's candidacy, but also for the "automatic anointing of Kamala Harris after Biden dropped out," which Democrats should "examine and learn from."

Mainstream political media is also implicated in questions about knowledge of Biden's health. There is an "unhealthy confluence of interests" between White House staff and White House reporters, said John Fund at the National Review. By failing to recognize "how powerful a motivation their sources had to deceive them," the political media "failed in their duty to probe more deeply and question the official White House line."

Fallout from questions about Biden's health may also affect other future candidates for office who played roles in his administration. Such potential candidates may find their campaigns "forced to address what they knew and what they did," USA Today said. Conversely, high-profile Democrats with "some distance" from the Biden 2024 team (people like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker or New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) could see their careers "boosted as the sort of fresh faces the party needs."

Will weight-loss drugs cut cancer rates? What's behind a rise in 'sextortion' cases? And why is cheese so bad for the environment?

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

A podcast for curious, open-minded people, The Week Unwrapped delivers fresh perspectives on politics, culture, technology and business. It makes for a lively, enlightening discussion, ranging from the serious to the offbeat. Previous topics have included whether solar engineering could refreeze the Arctic, why funerals are going out of fashion, and what kind of art you can use to pay your tax bill.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

The Y chromosome can disappear over time in human males, which may introduce a number of health problems. While the exact trigger for such degeneration is unknown, environmental factors can play a significant role. New research on the topic hints that the human Y chromosome is evolutionarily unstable and could even become extinct.

Chromosomal complications

Most people have 23 pairs of chromosomes, including a pair of sex chromosomes that can be either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome. Having two X chromosomes usually designates a human as biologically female, while having one X chromosome and one Y chromosome designates a human as male, though this is separate from a person's gender identity.

The Y chromosome is about one-third the size of the X and contains far fewer genes. Now, scientists have found that this smaller chromosome can degrade over time. "The idea is that as men grow older, they lose this chromosome from many of their cells, which drives age-related disease," said New Scientist.

The loss of the Y chromosome (LOY) has "important effects in shaping the activity of the immune system," and can open the door wider for several diseases, including "cancer, neurodegeneration, cardiovascular disease and acute infection," said a January 2025 study published in the journal Nature Reviews Genetics. "If you're a male, you do not want to lose your Y chromosome, it's definitely going to shorten your life," Kenneth Walsh, a professor at the University of Virginia, said to New Scientist.

When it comes to cancer, "tumors without the Y chromosome grew twice as fast as those with it," said New Scientist. This is largely because the "loss of the Y chromosome causes tumor cells to make proteins that exhaust T cells, a kind of immune cell that ordinarily recognizes and attacks cancers." In addition, research has shown that the risk of Alzheimer's disease greatly increases with LOY. Experts speculate that the "Y chromosome-deficient immune cells infiltrate the brain and may lead to increased inflammation or may be less able to regulate the inflammatory response," a symptom which is "characteristic of Alzheimer's disease," the study said.

Micro mistakes

Y chromosome loss is largely "due to cell division mistakes," said News Medical. This is "enormously common" and "not like some freakish accident," Lars Forsberg, a senior lecturer and associate professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, said to New Scientist. It likely happens to all males, but age increases the level of loss. Additionally, there is "no data to suggest that men with loss of Y would feel it."

Other contributing factors include smoking and exposure to environmental toxins like air pollution, glyphosate herbicides and arsenic-contaminated water. Quitting smoking could reduce the risk, and "future research may identify specific mutations or factors that trigger LOY," said News Medical.

LOY is "increasingly viewed as a marker of genome instability and a biological indicator of environmental stress," said News Medical. It could also be a major reason why females tend to have longer lifespans. "Females seem to be the stronger sex from a genetic point of view, with a more stable and less disease-prone genome," said the study. While the Y chromosome degrades on the individual level, there is evidence that the chromosome may be going extinct on an evolutionary scale.

Colorectal cancer has increased significantly over the past 20 years among adults under 50. Now scientists may have identified a potential factor in the rise: a toxin called colibactin. Exposure to the toxin happens in childhood and could be manipulating DNA to increase cancer risk.

Toxin timeline

Colibactin was linked to colorectal cancer cases in younger people, according to a study published in the journal Nature. The toxin has been known to cause DNA damage and is produced by several species of harmful gut bacteria, including E. coli. The recent study looked at tissue samples from close to 1,000 colorectal cancer patients across the world and found that "around 50% of early-onset colorectal cancers in individuals under 40 carried the distinctive signature of colibactin exposure," said senior study author Ludmil Alexandrov, a bioengineering and cellular and molecular medicine professor at UC San Diego, to NBC News.

Colibactin is a "genotoxin" and the "weapon system of a bacteria to fight other bacteria and to defend themselves," said Alexandrov. It can "get directed" to the gut cells and seed mutations, increasing the risk of developing colorectal cancer, said NPR. Also, exposure to colibactin happens well before a cancer diagnosis, usually in early life. "Our estimate is that it happens within the first 10 years of life," Alexandrov said. "So if you get that mutation at age 5, that puts you 20 to 30 years ahead of schedule for getting colorectal cancer."

There are "several plausible hypotheses" as to how children can be exposed to colibactin, including "early-life antibiotic use, which may allow these strains to establish more easily; dietary shifts such as increased consumption of processed foods or reduced fiber consumption; increased rates of C-section births or reduced breastfeeding; and wider use of early group childcare which could facilitate microbial transmission during a critical developmental window," Alexandrov said. While the study linked colibactin to cases of cancer, it does not prove that the toxin actually causes it.

Cancer causes

Scientists have observed an alarming rise in colorectal and gastrointestinal cancers in people under 50 since the mid-1990s but have not been able to pinpoint a specific cause. The disease's "incidence in adults under 50 has roughly doubled every decade for the past 20 years," said a release about the study. "If current trends continue, colorectal cancer is projected to become the leading cause of cancer-related death among young adults by 2030." So while colibactin is not a definitive cause, it could be an important puzzle piece.

Previous studies had linked colibactin to colorectal cancer but "either focused on late-onset cases or did not distinguish between early- and late-onset disease," said the release. Colibactin-producing bacteria are not the only toxin to have been linked to cancer. Exposure to the microbe F. nucleatum has also been found to potentially increase the risk of colorectal cancer development. "While colibactin-producing species may cause the initial mutations that drive tumor formation, F. nucleatum may contribute to disease development by enabling the tumor to proliferate and evade the immune system," said NBC News.

Sunbeds might seem like a "relic" of the noughties for some people, but Gen Z are surprisingly keen to top up their tans, said Emma Loffhagen in London's The Standard.

Last year, a survey by Melanoma Focus found that 28% of UK adults used tanning salons, soaring to 43% of 18- to 24-year-olds. "Sunbeds, it seems, are back".

An 'explosion' of tanning salons

It had appeared as if tanning salons were on the way out. The UK government banned under-18s from using sunbeds in 2011, while Australia went a step further and outlawed commercial sunbeds altogether in 2015.

However, in recent years there has been an "explosion" in the number of British tanning salons, said Andrew Ellson in The Times. The UK's largest tanning chain, The Tanning Shop, has recorded "rapid growth" since 2018, increasing its outlets by almost 40%. Indigo Sun, the country's second biggest chain, now has over 100 tanning shops across the UK and has nearly quadrupled its profits since 2015. Many of these salons promote sunbeds as a "safe" way to tan in a "controlled environment", while touting the potential "wellness" benefits of tanning, from stress relief to boosted vitamin D levels.

It's an interesting "rebrand" given that the World Health Organization classified indoor tanning as a class-one carcinogen in 2009, assigning it to the same category as tobacco and asbestos. Cancer Research UK stresses there is "no such thing as safe tanning from UV radiation", warning that people who start using sunbeds before the age of 35 have a 75% increased risk of malignant melanoma, the most deadly type of skin cancer.

Incidences of melanoma have increased by around two-and-a-half times in the UK since the early 1990s, with about 17,500 new cases diagnosed each year.

In fact, the latest generation of sunbeds actually emit stronger rays, meaning you can now get a tan in as little as four minutes, considerably shorter than the half-hour sessions of the past, said Olivia Luppino in Women's Health. This "potentially makes them more dangerous", Seattle-based dermatologist Heather Rogers told the publication.

A curious contradiction

So what's driving Gen Z's sunbed addiction? "Welcome to tanning TikTok", said Katie Rosseinsky in The Independent. In this "corner" of the app, young people are "proudly documenting their sunbed habit", inviting viewers to come with them on a trip to the tanning salon, and sharing "tips and tricks for maximising your tan". And last January Kim Kardashian hit the headlines when a TikTok of the influencer showing off her office sunbed went viral.

"It's a bizarre contradiction" for a generation so obsessed with painstaking skincare routines, said Hannah Skelley in The Times. Ironically, the same people who are investing heavily in "anti-ageing" cosmetics to keep wrinkles at bay are indulging in a habit that has been proven to accelerate premature skin ageing.

Having grown up in a "tan-tastic era of tan-accelerator tablets", I understand the "unwavering desire for a sun-kissed glow", said Skelley. However, "I simply refuse to age like a prune". Today's self-tanning products, like "silky mousses and creamy tinted moisturisers", are such high quality, there's no need to risk cancer for a tan.

With the desire for perfect bronzed skin and the lack of information about the dangers of sunbeds, Gen Z is "taking a risk they don't entirely understand", Dr Rogers told Women's Health.

The crucial lesson from all this is not to get "lured in" by the countless clips circulating on social media, and the growing body of "misinformation", added Amelia Bell in Elle. "And, if you are looking to boost your tan? Always opt for faux."

It was "virtually unheard of in the 20th century" but now bowel cancer in people under the age of 50 accounts for "around 10% of all new cases worldwide", said New Scientist. And England is one of the countries most affected.

Rates of early-onset bowel cancer in England have increased by 3.6% per year over the past decade, an "alarming rise" that's higher than any other country analysed, except New Zealand, Chile and Puerto Rico, according American Cancer Society research published in The Lancet – and a stark contrast to the decreasing rates of bowel cancer in England among the over-50s.

"It's important to note that rates in younger adults are still very low, compared to people over 50," said Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, in response to the research. But "we need to understand what's causing this trend in younger people".

What is bowel cancer?

Bowel cancer, also called colorectal cancer, is caused by the growth of abnormal cells in the inner lining of the large bowel (which includes the colon and the rectum). Symptoms can include bleeding from your back passage, blood in your poo, a change in your "bowel habit" (such as needing to poo more often) or losing weight when you haven't been trying to.

Around 44,100 people in the UK are diagnosed with bowel cancer every year, making it the country's fourth-most common cancer. It's also the UK's second-most common cause of death from cancer, with more than 16,800 people dying from the disease each year. Mortality rates are highest among the elderly, with almost six in ten of all bowel-cancer deaths affecting people over the age of 75, according to Cancer Research UK.

If diagnosed early enough, however, bowel cancer is both treatable and survivable: around 90% of people in England who are diagnosed with stage 1 of the disease are still alive five years later.

Awareness of bowel cancer among younger people has grown over the past few years –boosted by the efforts of campaigners such as "Bowelbabe" Deborah James. She was diagnosed at 35, and used her podcast to highlight the disease symptoms, and tackle its stigmas, until her death in 2022, aged 40.

Why are rates in younger people rising?

Experts are "still in the early stages of understanding" why there has been a rise in early-onset bowel cancer, said The Guardian, but higher consumption of junk food, lower physical activity and "the obesity epidemic" are "likely to be among the factors".

The countries most affected have seen "major changes in lifestyle", said the New Scientist, with people "sitting more and moving less", and consuming "more highly-processed, low-fibre foods", red meats and alcohol.

At the same time, there has also been a "soaring" increase in the use of antibiotics. These can have a "profound impact on the gut microbiome, and there is good evidence that disturbances to the microbiome are a risk factor" for bowel cancer. Scientists don't think it's a coincidence that there has also been a dramatic rise in other inflammatory bowel diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, among young people.

So far, though, the research into these potential triggers has "produced conflicting results". Some scientists are floating the idea that early-onset bowel cancer "may not be the same" as late-onset bowel cancer but "a distinct disease that would require a different treatment strategy". While research continues, it's important that young people are "made more aware of the risk" and look at their lifestyle choices, Sarah Bailey, a cancer-diagnostics researcher at the University of Exeter, told the New Scientist.

How can you reduce your risk?

Experts agree that diet is an "important factor", said The Guardian. Too much red and processed meat are thought to be responsible for an estimated 13% of bowel cancer cases in the UK. Eating more fibre (fruit, vegetables, pulses and wholegrains) and cutting back on alcohol and sugary drinks should also help. Aim, too, to maintain a healthy weight and take regular exercise: there is "strong evidence" to show that "people who are more physically active have a lower rate of bowel cancer".

You could also look at upping your calcium intake: Oxford University researchers have found that women who drink a large glass of cow's milk every day can cut their bowel-cancer risk by nearly a fifth, said The i Paper. There is also some research on the positive benefits of coffee: one study of bowel-cancer survivors in the Netherlands found that those who drank coffee were at a much lower risk of re-developing the disease. It's thought this may be linked to the high polyphenol content of both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee.

Every day, the world's scientists and researchers are working to improve human health, develop medical knowledge, and find cures and treatments that will, ultimately, improve outcomes for patients. Here are five key medical breakthroughs from this year.

Bespoke drugs for Alzheimer's patients

The leading cause of dementia, Alzheimer's disease affects about seven million people in Europe. There is currently no cure, so treatment is focused on slowing down its progression and managing the symptoms. A recent Dutch study has raised hopes that this kind of treatment could become much more personalised.

The Dutch researchers identified five "molecular subtypes" of Alzheimer's, each of which has "clear differences" in its genetics and in "the clinical characteristics" that patients display, said LiveScience.

Using mass spectrometry, the researchers were able to sort more than 400 Alzheimer's patients into these five subtypes, according to the different "levels of specific proteins in their cerebrospinal fluid", a clear liquid that flows around the brain and spinal cord. It's these proteins that are associated with the biological processes that "get derailed in Alzheimer's".

The study findings represent "an important step" towards being able to give each Alzheimer's patient "the best drug for them at the right stage of their disease".

'Gamechanger' for asthma and lung disease

Doctors are hailing a new treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) attacks as "the first breakthrough for 50 years". It could be a "gamechanger", said The Guardian.

Respiratory medicine specialists, running a trial published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, found that a single, high-dose injection of benralizumab was more effective than the current steroid-tablets treatment at managing the particular type of flare-up behind 50% of asthma attacks and 30% of COPD attacks. The injection also cut "the need for further treatment by 30%".

Benralizumab is already used, at a low dose, as a repeat treatment for severe asthma but these trial results for its new use could be "transformative for millions of people with asthma and COPD around the world".

This trial "shows massive promise," the study's lead author Dr Sanjay Ramakrishnan, clinical senior lecturer at the University of Western Australia, told The Guardian. "COPD is the third leading cause of death worldwide but treatment for the condition is stuck in the 20th century."

Saliva test for prostate cancer

A simple at-home spit test could soon identify the men who are most at risk of developing prostate cancer.

There is currently no national screening programme for prostate cancer, which "claims around 12,000 lives a year", said the BBC. There is a blood test GPs can request but it is "not considered accurate enough" and can sometimes even falsely identify cancer.

The new test "looks through the DNA" in a saliva sample to identify "a range of small genetic changes linked to prostate cancer," said Cancer Research UK. Preliminary study results suggest that the saliva test produces "fewer false positives" and picks up "a higher proportion of aggressive cancers" than the blood test, said the BBC.

The study, which has not yet been published, involved more than 6,000 European men aged 55 to 69 – the age range at which the risk of prostate cancer is increased. The researchers, from London's Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, believe this cheap new test "could help catch the disease earlier and save lives".

The test is "simple from the patient's point of view", consultant urologist Prof Caroline Moore told the BBC. You "get sent a tube, put your saliva sample into it and post it off". The next step is more research to confirm if the test can be rolled out at scale.

'Yoga pill' for anxiety and depression

A "breakthrough brain-circuit discovery" could lead to the development of new drugs for anxiety, stress and panic disorders, said The Independent. Potentially, there could even be "a pill providing the benefits of yoga".

US researchers have identified a specific brain pathway which allows conscious slowing of the breath, so helping to reduce negative emotions such as anxiety. This discovery validates the "self-soothe" slow-breathing techniques that "are the central part of practices like mindfulness and yoga" – but which, until now, neuroscientists have "little understood" in terms of how they work in the brain.

The findings of this study, published in Nature Neuroscience, could mean that, in the future, the "specific set of brain cells" involved could be "targeted with drugs", and "lead to long-term solutions for people with anxiety and stress".

The study focused on mice brains, so there is more research ahead. But "we now have a potentially targetable brain circuit for creating therapeutics that could instantly slow breathing and initiate a peaceful, meditative state", said study author Sung Han, associate professor at the Salk Institute in California.

Personalised cancer vaccines

Patients in England who are being treated for cancer are taking part in NHS trials of a "world-first" personalised cancer vaccine.

The mRNA vaccine is "custom-built" for each eligible patient and works "by training the immune system to recognise, destroy and prevent the spread of cancer cells", said NHS England.

The "game-changing jabs, which aim to provide a permanent cure", are "tailored to the individual's tumours", said The Guardian.

The trials, which are running at 30 sites across England in partnership with the mRNA vaccine research company BioNTech, are initially focusing on patients with colorectal, skin, lung, bladder, pancreatic and kidney cancer.

Although still in its early stages, research into cancer vaccines has already shown that they "can be effective at killing off any remaining tumour cells after surgery and dramatically cut the risk of cancer returning".

NHS England head, Amanda Pritchard, hailed the trials as a "landmark moment" for people with cancer.

The Princess of Wales has released a new video confirming that she has completed a course of chemotherapy treatment following her cancer diagnosis.

In the three-minute message released by Kensington Palace, Catherine said this year had been an "incredibly tough" journey through "stormy waters", describing the experience as "scary and unpredictable".

The footage, filmed by videographer Will Warr and filmed in Norfolk last month, shows the Princess of Wales alongside the Prince of Wales and their three children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, enjoying time in nature together. Other moments show Kate on her own, wandering through a forest and driving, symbolically suggesting that "she is in control of her life", said The Telegraph. "Much of the footage is shot in an old-fashioned grainy style," reminiscent of "royal videos of old" from the late Queen's reign showing "Royal family holidays at Balmoral or on the Royal Yacht Britannia".

In the video, Catherine says she is "looking forward to being back at work and undertaking a few more public engagements in the coming months when I can". It is thought she hopes to attend the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday, and plans to host a Christmas carol concert at Westminster Abbey in December, said The Times.

In March, amid global speculation over her absence from public duties, Catherine announced that she had been diagnosed with an undisclosed form of cancer following abdominal surgery. The diagnosis was made public a month after King Charles revealed that he had been diagnosed with cancer. The king is still believed to be undergoing treatment. In a video statement released at the time, the princess said that it had taken time to explain the news to her children and reassure them that "I am going to be OK".

Catherine made her first public appearance following the announcement at the Trooping the Colour in June, and was also at Wimbledon for the Men's Singles finals in July, where she received a standing ovation from the crowd.

Will pay TV win African hearts and minds? How did a former supermodel spark a cancer row? And what can we learn from the death of a cetaceous spy suspect? And have government spending cuts led to worse art? Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days. 

A podcast for curious, open-minded people, The Week Unwrapped delivers fresh perspectives on politics, culture, technology and business.

It makes for a lively, enlightening discussion, ranging from the serious to the offbeat. Previous topics have included whether solar engineering could refreeze the Arctic, why funerals are going out of fashion and what kind of art you can use to pay your tax bill.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

Can a bacon sandwich raise your risk of diabetes?

That's the question being asked after a study of two million people found that eating a small amount of processed meat leads to a significantly increased chance of contracting the disease.

But the finding, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, is just the latest development in the "ever-evolving and confusing world of nutrition science", said New Scientist. So just how dangerous is processed meat?

What are the findings?

The study of just under two million people from 20 different countries found a link to red and processed meats, including steak, and bacon and sausages.

The team, from the University of Cambridge, found that for every 50 grams of processed meat eaten per day, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes rose on average by 15%, while an extra 100g of unprocessed red meat per day was linked to a 10% higher risk. It also found that the link between type 2 diabetes and eating poultry, such as chicken, turkey and duck, remained uncertain and needs further investigation.

Speaking to The Times, Professor Naveed Sattar, from the University of Glasgow, said the findings suggest cutting red and processed meats from diets "may not only protect people from heart disease and stroke" but also from type 2 diabetes, "a disease on the rise worldwide".

What are the question marks?

Although the research "has been done well", said the BBC, the findings are "nuanced" and "should not cause fear or panic".

The "inevitable limitation" of the research is that it "cannot prove" meat causes diabetes, because it is "impossible to fully discount" other possible risk factors, such as "other foods people in the study ate" and "the lifestyle they led".

Research like this "has to rely on participants telling the truth and accurately recalling what they eat", so it "should not wipe meat off the menu", added the broadcaster.

But this does not mean the findings should be "entirely dismissed" because they add to a "growing picture of what foods – and how much – might be good or bad for us".

What do health agencies say about meat?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer puts processed meat in the same category of risk as tobacco smoking and asbestos. The NHS advises people to consume no more than 70g (cooked weight) of red or processed meat a day because experts believe eating too much can cause bowel cancer.

Another recent study found that those who avoid meat "seem to be in better health", said The Telegraph, adding that vegetarians and vegans "appear less likely to develop cardiovascular disease, cancer or die early" and also "tend to have better blood pressure, blood sugar and BMI readings".

Experts say people considering cutting down on their meat intake should make sure they still have plenty of iron, vitamin B12 and protein in their diet.

What is diabetes?

The condition occurs when the pancreas fails to produce sufficient insulin to control the amount of glucose, or sugar, in the blood. Patients with type 1 diabetes, which accounts for 10% of cases, cannot produce insulin. The remaining 90% with type 2 diabetes either don't produce enough or their cells fail to react to it.

The number of cases has doubled over the past two decades and last year 4.3 million people in Britain were living with a formal diagnosis, while it is thought one million adults are living with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Moderate drinkers feeling boosted by the belief that light drinking is healthier than abstinence have been served up the bad news that this might be a myth.

A longstanding "source of great comfort" for the "regular boozer" has been a "fat pile of studies" that claim a "daily tipple" is better for a longer life than avoiding alcohol completely, said The Guardian. But a new report has found "serious flaws" with this claim, said New Scientist.

'Bias problem'

The best way to assess the effects of alcohol would be to "randomly assign people to drink it or not in childhood and then monitor their health and drinking over the rest of their lives", said the magazine, but since such studies "cannot be done", researchers have to "ask people about their drinking habits and follow them over much shorter periods of time".

By the 2000s, countless studies of this kind had concluded that if people drank a little then their risk of dying of any cause went down a little compared with non-drinkers, but drinking more led to a sharp increase in the risk.

Now, scientists in Canada have combed through 107 studies on people's drinking habits and how long they lived. They found that drinkers had usually been compared with people who drank no alcohol or very little, without taking into account that some of those had cut down or quit through ill health.

This brought the group's average health down, and made light to moderate drinkers "look better off in comparison", said The Guardian.

So there is a "bias" problem, Tim Stockwell at the University of Victoria in Canada told New Scientist, because researchers often don't compare people who have never drunk alcohol with those who have. Instead, some studies, which claim to compare current drinkers with "never drinkers", may include occasional drinkers in the latter group, he added. For instance, one study defined people as lifetime abstainers even if they drank on up to 11 occasions every year.

'Propaganda coup'

People should be "sceptical" of the claims that the industry has "fuelled over the years," said Stockwell, because booze bosses "obviously have a great stake" in promoting their product as "something that's going to make you live longer as opposed to one that will give you cancer".

Moderate drinking is "maybe not as risky as lots of other things you do", he added, but "it's important that consumers are aware". It's "also important that the producers are made to inform consumers of the risks through warning labels", he added.

The myth of moderate drinking being healthy has been a "propaganda coup for the alcohol industry", Stockwell told The Guardian, allowing it to propose that moderate use of their product "lengthens people's lives".

The idea has "impacted" national drinking guidelines, estimates of alcohol's burden of disease worldwide and been "an impediment" to effective policymaking on alcohol and public health.

But the tide had already begun to turn before his latest findings. A report published in 2018 found that alcohol led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016 and was the leading risk factor for premature death and disability in 15- to 49-year-olds. In the over-50s, around 27% of cancer deaths in women and 19% in men were linked to their drinking habits.

Last year, a major study of more than half a million Chinese men, published in Nature, linked alcohol to more than 60 diseases, including liver cirrhosis, stroke, several gastrointestinal cancers, gout, cataracts and gastric ulcers.

Also in 2023, the World Health Organization said that any amount of alcohol was dangerous. "There is no safe amount that does not affect health," the group declared. England's former chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has agreed that there is no safe level of alcohol intake.

But ultimately the choice "is personal", wrote Lydia Denworth in Scientific American. People have "long derived pleasure from alcohol" and she is "one of them". She conceded that "wine is not benign" adding that "the occasional glass is a risk worth taking – for me".

Are Donald Trump's legal obstacles melting away? Could self-testing replace the cervical smear? And what kind of world is Katy Perry living in?

A podcast for curious, open-minded people, The Week Unwrapped delivers fresh perspectives on politics, culture, technology and business. 

It makes for a lively, enlightening discussion, ranging from the serious to the offbeat. Previous topics have included whether solar engineering could refreeze the Arctic, why funerals are going out of fashion and what kind of art you can use to pay your tax bill. 

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

Rare types of cancer are showing up in higher numbers since the Covid-19 pandemic. Doctors suspect that the virus itself may be contributing to the higher cancer rates, despite a solid connection not yet being established. The pandemic may have permanently altered the bodies of those infected, making them more susceptible to cancer. Those affected include people who were otherwise previously healthy. 

What do cancer trends look like?

Doctors have identified a marked increase in late-stage rarer cancers in people who had otherwise been healthy. Lung, blood and colon cancer, especially, have been rising in younger people. Specifically, medical experts have observed a rise in new cancer patients, multiple patients with multiple cancers, couples and siblings developing cancer within months of each other and cancer patients relapsing after years of remission. 

The trend has been particularly noticeable since the Covid-19 pandemic. "This is an observation that has piqued the researchers' and clinicians' interest, that, is there an association with Covid, especially long Covid and cancer?" Dr. Suraj Saggar, chief of infectious disease at Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, New Jersey, said to Fox 5 New York.

Cancer is caused by errors in genetic code within cells. "The human body is made up of trillions of cells in a constant state of growth, repair and death," said The Washington Post. "Most of the time, cells with damaged DNA fix themselves, or simply disappear. Sometimes, they start collecting mistakes in their genetic code and rampage out of control into tumors." 

What is more alarming is the prevalence of people suffering from more than one type of cancer. "Having multiple forms of cancer at the same time has also become more prevalent. Cancers typically start in one part of the body and spread," the Post said. "It's rare for discrete cancers to begin in different parts of the body during a short window." 

What could be causing the rise?

Some scientists posit that the Covid virus itself could be contributing to the higher numbers of cancer diagnoses, especially for those who are suffering from long Covid. "The idea that some viruses can cause or accelerate cancer is hardly new," said the Post. "Scientists have recognized this possibility since the 1960s, and today, researchers estimate 15% to 20% of all cancers worldwide originate from infectious agents such as HPV, Epstein-Barr and hepatitis B." 

Because "infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurs in several organs either directly or indirectly, it is expected that cancer stem cells may develop in multiple organs," said a 2023 study published in the journal Biochimie. Lung, colorectal, pancreatic and oral cancer could particularly be exacerbated. 

While not officially confirmed, the virus is said to cause full-body inflammation. "Inflammation triggers many genetic changes in a genome that can create a propensity of developing cancer in certain individuals," Dr. Kashyap Patel, CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates, said to News Nation. "We are completely under-investigating this virus," Douglas C. Wallace, a geneticist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said to the Post. "The effects of repeatedly getting this throughout our lives is going to be much more significant than people are thinking."

Cancer will affect us all during our lifetimes, whether through our own diagnoses or those of loved ones. It's a fact Professor Caroline Dive, director of the CRUK National Biomarker Centre, knows all too well. 

"Nearly one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetimes. Walking through the Christie Hospital in Manchester, the largest cancer hospital in Europe, I'm surrounded by the reasons why I do what I do," she says. And given Dive’s family history, it’s clear to see where her tireless motivation comes from.

Dive's grandfather died from brain cancer before she was born. Her mother has undergone surgery on an endometrial tumour, and her father was treated for colon cancer. He passed away last year at 95 years-old, following a further diagnosis of cancer.

It was her father that inspired Dive to pursue a career in science. A degree in pharmacy led on to PhD studies in Cambridge, and her career has taken a number of twists and turns since. But one constant has been the support of Cancer Research UK and its philanthropic partners, which have funded her work for more than 35 years. 

Dive has witnessed the radical transformation of cancer care, from the phasing out of the first chemotherapeutic drugs – nitrogen mustards, which were originally developed for chemical warfare during World War Two – through to the development of cutting-edge targeted treatments like immunotherapies. More recently, she's been drawn to biomarkers.

"Biomarker is one word, but it covers a plethora of different sorts of tests that enable clinicians to manage a patient's individual cancer in the best way possible," she explains. These tests could indicate a person's risk of getting cancer, detect early signs of the disease, or show the aggressiveness of a cancer. 

The impact biomarkers will have on patients' care can't be underestimated. Doctors will be able to get more information, faster, to determine the best treatment plan for each individual. 

And it will stop some patients from undergoing unnecessary interventions or treatments that could cause pain or discomfort. 

"We are working on a test that predicts who is going to respond to immunotherapy, for example," Dive explains. "Immunotherapy can work really, really well in some patients, but not all. The last thing you want is to give immunotherapy to a patient where it has no chance of working, but where it might cause some rather unpleasant side effects and be quite toxic." 

These revolutionary tests mark a crucial step in making personalised medicine a reality, thanks to Cancer Research UK's ongoing commitment to transforming the outlook for people affected by the disease. "We have to learn how to manage cancer. And that will mean we can give patients longer with their loved ones, and a good quality of life," says Dive.

More than 100 people are working on pioneering research at the CRUK National Biomarker Centre, playing an integral part in a global network of outstanding scientific research. "Biomarker research is undergoing quite a revolution right now and we're cautiously optimistic that for example, new blood tests, called liquid biopsies, that are readily repeatable, could make a huge impact in improving patient care. But there's still an enormous amount of work to be done to make sure these blood tests are good enough for routine use in the clinic. For sure it's a hugely exciting time to be a cancer researcher," she says.

But scientists can't find the answers to cancer's biggest challenges alone. It's only by partnering with philanthropists that progress can continue to be made. Together, donors and researchers are writing the next chapters in our cancer journey. And there's still time to be part of the story. Cancer Research UK is the world's biggest charitable funder of cancer research and is uniquely positioned to turn investment into impact. In the 1970s, just one in four people in the UK survived their cancer for 10 years or more. Now, twice as many survive, an astounding feat. "But we need to do more," says Dive. "We need to transform the outlook for all people affected by cancer. And to get there, we need more support." 

Through its "More Research, Less Cancer" philanthropy campaign, Cancer Research UK aims to work with philanthropists to raise £400 million to invest in four priority areas. The focus will be on the Francis Crick Institute, funding the global initiative Cancer Grand Challenges, supporting scientists at every stage of their careers and enabling more innovation that translates into effective therapies and diagnostics for patients. 

The campaign will make previously dreamed-of leaps forward in understanding, managing and overcoming cancer a reality. Such developments rely on widespread and lengthy experiments, Dive explains. "You have to go big. If you don't go big, you don't get the answer. And to go big, you need a lot of money. We're trying to build a pipeline of experiments which expands as we get more and more confident, so that we can get the absolute rock-solid answer. Unfortunately, there aren't any shortcuts."

Science is moving faster than ever, and new technologies are revealing previously unknown paths to further discoveries. Dive's days are packed with meetings as she oversees all the various projects, research and partnerships taking place at the CRUK National Biomarker Centre. The work, it seems, is never ending – and so is Dive's dedication and passion. "It's busy, and it's challenging. But I love what I do and it's a wonderful career," she says. "If someone asked what I would love to be doing right now, I'd say I would love to be a PhD student, starting again, in this golden age of cancer research. The next generation of cancer researchers – students, clinical fellows, young postdocs– these are the future." 

Further research is urgently needed to help this next generation of scientists keep pace with the challenges that cancer poses. The world's population is not only growing rapidly, but people are living longer too – so while some 18.7 million people around the world receive a cancer diagnosis every year at present, that number is expected to rise to at least 27 million by 2040, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Undeterred by the scale of this global crisis, researchers and leaders like Dive around the world are on the brink of breakthroughs that could give every patient a better outcome.

"Philanthropists, trusts and foundations have a real opportunity to make a difference, and we can demonstrate that impact," she says. By supporting the "More Research, Less Cancer" campaign, donors will accelerate breakthroughs and give scientists the tools they need to shape patients' lives for the better, for longer. 

Together, scientists and philanthropists are building a life-changing legacy that will change the lives of patients for generations to come. The future course of our battle against cancer is truly in their hands. "Without Cancer Research UK, where would we be?" asks Dive. 

More research today will mean less cancer tomorrow. Visit cruk.org/more-research-less-cancer. 

What happened

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule Tuesday that will require 218 chemical plants to reduce toxic and carcinogenic airborne pollutants, aiming to reduce the number of people with elevated cancer risk by 96% nationwide. The rule targets ethylene oxide, used for sterilizing medical devices, and chloroprene, used to make rubber in footwear, plus four other chemicals. More than half the affected plants are in Texas and Louisiana, including a strip of factories and adjacent communities known as Cancer Alley.

Who said what

These "strong final standards" will "slash pollution, reduce cancer risk and ensure cleaner air for nearby communities," said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. 

The commentary

The new regulations, based on "deeply flawed" methodology, "threaten to affect the production of chemistries that are needed for countless everyday products" and "key industries," said Tom Flanagin, spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council. For the families living near these plants, "in a very real sense this is about life and death," said Earthjustice's Patrice Simms.

What next?

The rule will take effect soon after it is published in the federal register.

The discovery of asbestos in some handfuls of mulch a child took from a playground in Sydney has caused a scare in the Australian city.

With separate concern over asbestos in ageing pipes that provide drinking water around the world, attention is returning to the dangers of the carcinogenic substance.

The background

A child brought home a couple of handfuls of garden mulch from near a playground in Sydney's inner west last month. Their parent was "horrified" to spot what looked like chunks of bonded asbestos in the mulch, noted the BBC, and a "contamination crisis" has now forced the closure of several public parks, playgrounds and schools.

There has also been a scare about asbestos in drinking water, because "hundreds of thousands of miles" of pipes made from asbestos are "reaching the end of their lifespan and starting to degrade", said BBC Future.

By 1988, 23,000 miles of asbestos cement piping had been installed in the UK, delivering water to 12m people. There are "growing concerns" that as these "ageing" pipes near the end of their expected lifespan they will deteriorate, leading to breakages, as happened in 2022, in Stannington, a suburb of Sheffield.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral composed of thin, needle-like fibres. Historically, it has been used in a range of commercial products such from insulation and fireproofing materials, to automotive brakes, and wallboard materials.

Public health campaigns "through the 1980s and '90s" have made asbestos "synonymous with cancer", said ABC News. The carcinogenic substance has been banned in the UK since 1999 and many people hoped we had seen the back of it. A partial ban was passed in the US in 1989 and Australia banned it in 2003.

The latest

After the child's mulch discovery, officials in New South Wales said there could be tainted woodchips at hundreds of locations and a local mayor said the situation was "beyond belief".

The Environment Protection Authority is undertaking a criminal investigation, thought to be the largest in state history, to discover "who has done the wrong thing", said the Sydney state minister.

Meanwhile, the UK Water Industry Research found that the highest rate of deterioration is in pipes installed after 1960 and the burst rates for such pipes are increasing by 28% on average in each decade. But it could cost between £5-8bn to replace the stock of asbestos cement water mains currently in use in the UK and Ireland alone.

In brighter news, a new drug for a type of deadly cancer caused by exposure to asbestos has been "hailed as a breakthrough", said Forbes. Scientists have welcomed the "truly wonderful" arrival of the new therapy, which they say should offer fresh hope to those with the disease and their families, reported The Guardian.

The reaction

The World Health Organisation does not consider ingestion of asbestos in drinking water to be a serious risk to human health. But the evidence is "contradictory", said the BBC, with some studies showing a correlation between asbestos exposure through drinking water and incidences of stomach and gut cancers.

In Australia, experts said the mulch does not pose a significant risk to the general public, noted ABC News. "The exposure levels are very small", Ewan MacFarlane, an occupational epidemiologist at Monash University told the outlet. The risk to children is "very, very, very low", said Tim Driscoll, a professor of epidemiology and occupational medicine at the University of Sydney.

The news that King Charles has been diagnosed with a form of cancer has put the disease at the centre of a national conversation.

One in two people will develop cancer during their lifetime, so even those of us who avoid the disease will know someone less fortunate.

But speaking to someone who has cancer can be a challenging and uncomfortable experience, as we try to say the right things and avoid saying the wrong things.

Offer specific help

Instead of asking the person with cancer to let you know if there's anything they need, most people agree that it's better to proactively offer specific forms of assistance. For instance, you could suggest that you could cook meals, run errands, or help with childcare. "By being specific they may be more specific in return," wrote Deborah Ross in The Times.

A good way of doing this is to ask open-ended questions such as "What errands can I take off your plate this week?" or "How do you need to be supported right now?", said Dr Lisa Stewart, a clinical psychologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in Parade.

Listen and be empathic

"If someone with a cancer diagnosis is talking you through their fears or side effects, that is not your cue to dive in and start suggesting things they should be doing," wrote Rosamund Dean, on the i news site. "What they need is for you to listen, and just listen."

Writing in the London Evening Standard, Lucy King, who was diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer in 2020,  recalled a friend who held her hand and asked how the bad news had made her feel. "It meant a lot," she said.

Don't say 'everything will be fine'

"If you are interested in not being a total idiot," said Ross, "there are certain things you should probably not say." One of these is telling the person everything will be fine because while it can be tempting to offer hope, mindless positivity is rarely helpful. 

"Try not to say that everything will be fine or encourage them to be positive," said Macmillan, the cancer charity, because "it can sound as if you are not listening to their worries". Instead, it "is better to let people speak honestly about their feelings".

Don't recommend 'miracle cures'

Sometimes people want to recommend an alternative cure or treatment, but this might be best avoided. "I found it unhelpful when people recommended so-called miracle cancer cures," wrote Vicky Deacon, who was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer in 2020, in Good Housekeeping.

"Don't imagine for a moment that they, or someone in the family, hasn't googled the s**t out of every single option out there," said Ross. "I beg you to bite your tongue – hard – if you are going to recommend against prescribed treatments."

Check in regularly

Cancer is a long journey with many ups and downs, so regular check-ins show that your support isn't just a one-off. Cancer Research UK said that you "offer support throughout the whole diagnosis – at the beginning, during and after treatment".

Something is better than nothing

The fear of saying the wrong thing can lead some people to avoid the subject or to avoid the person altogether. But it's about the victim, not you, so "say if you feel awkward", said Cancer Research UK, because "it acknowledges the situation rather than pretending it's not happening".

Many people with cancer say that it's better to speak imperfectly than to say nothing at all. King wrote that "saying something is always better than saying nothing". She added that once a friend or family member has told you about their diagnosis, "one big rule" is that you don't avoid the subject, and don't leave them to reach out to you.

As the nation absorbs the news of King Charles's cancer diagnosis, what happens if he becomes unable to fulfil his constitutional duties is another concern.

"Much of his private work will continue," according to the BBC's political editor Chris Mason, and the monarch will still "receive his red boxes, the daily exchange of paperwork at the heart of his role".

It is also thought that his weekly meetings with the prime minister will continue during his treatment. But if the King were to become seriously ill, a piece of legislation called the Regency Act could come into play.

What is the Regency Act?

The Regency Act of 1937 was introduced during the reign of King Charles's grandfather, King George VI. It states that if the monarch "by reason of infirmity of mind or body" is "incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions”, a "Regent" would be appointed to take their place until they have recovered.

The act also states that if the throne passes to someone aged under 18, a regent is appointed to rule for them until they reach the age of 18.

The sovereign "does not control when or for how long a regency occurs", said academic and lawyer Anne Twomey on The Conversation. Instead, it must be declared in writing by three or more out of the following: the sovereign’s spouse, the lord chancellor, the speaker of the House of Commons, the lord chief justice of England and the master of the rolls.

The UK’s Regency Act rules that Prince William would currently be regent, as he is the next adult in line of succession to the crown. The regent has the powers of the King with regard to the UK, but cannot change the order of succession to the crown.

What about counsellors of state?

King Charles could delegate some or most of his functions to counsellors of state, as he has already often done when travelling overseas. Two counsellors of state act jointly in exercising royal powers such as assenting to laws, receiving ambassadors and holding Privy Council meetings.

Counsellors of state have sometimes carried out important royal functions. In February 1974, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret declared a state of emergency and dissolved Parliament. However, counsellors of state can no longer dissolve Parliament, except on His Majesty's express instruction.

Have the rules been changed?

Yes. In 1953, following the succession of Queen Elizabeth, a significant tweak was made that allowed the Duke of Edinburgh to rule as regent should one of their children ascend the throne as a minor, said Royal Central.

In 2022, King Charles announced that he would be asking Parliament to amend the Regency Act to increase the number of counsellors of state who can conduct official public business while the monarch is overseas or otherwise indisposed.

His decision to add Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, and his younger brother, Prince Edward, to the list of counsellors of state was a "generous spirited recognition of the services" that they had "undertaken for decades", said The Spectator. But it was less good news for Prince Harry and Prince Andrew, who will not be called upon as they are no longer "working royals".

The King's request was debated by both the Lords and the House of Commons before being passed into law.

Will a regent be needed?

It is too early to tell, but the messages from Buckingham Palace have been positive. In a statement, the royal household said that although "a number of the King's forthcoming public engagements will have to be rearranged or postponed", he remains "wholly positive" and "looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible".

The Prince of Wales is expected to cover some of his father's engagements while the King receives treatment for cancer.

King Charles has been diagnosed with cancer and will postpone public duties during his treatment, Buckingham Palace has announced.

The King "remains wholly positive about his treatment and looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible," the Palace said in a statement. Rishi Sunak wished the monarch a "full and speedy recovery", as did Labour leader Keir Starmer and heads of state worldwide.

The man "once known as the longest-serving heir to the throne" has now been forced to contemplate "not what he can do" with his reign, said The Telegraph, "but what he can manage". The Palace has given "no indication" that the King intends to step down, said The Independent. Rather, senior royals "are expected to stand in for him" while he recuperates.

Insiders reportedly said that the diagnosis came as a shock, but the disease is "understood to have been caught at an early stage", said The Times. Palace staff are "keen to remind people" that the "mood remains genuinely ­positive", the paper added. 

Despite stepping back from public events, the King will "continue with paperwork and private meetings as head of state", the BBC said.

Nevertheless, said The Guardian, the diagnosis will "cast doubt" on the monarch's "future role". The King’s illness "comes just as he was making a mark and as his popularity was growing", the paper added.

It might feel like good news stories have been few and far between this year, with wars breaking out and the climate crisis ravaging four separate continents. 

But Christmas is also the time to take stock of what has gone right, and here a brighter picture emerges. All over the world, advances in science, medicine and technology have offered succour now and hope for the future, while cultural and sporting figures have continued to strive for excellence. 

Here at The Week we have selected six great news stories from 2023, to see you through to the New Year. Merry Christmas, and glad tidings to all our readers. 

Malaria

Huge strides have been made in the fight against one of the world's deadliest diseases, with the first vaccine being approved in 2021. But it is the second, recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in October, that offers the best chance so far of eradicating malaria. 

The R21/Matrix-M vaccine, developed by the University of Oxford, is cheaper and more effective, thus is more likely to close the huge supply-and-demand issue in Africa. 

Despite the warming planet challenging efforts, and rising cases in the US, there are other avenues of hope. Scientists are working on genetically modified mosquitoes that are unable to transmit the malaria parasite. 

Flora and fauna

Despite the ongoing climate crisis, there have been some remarkable good news stories in the environment. 

The previously near-extinct golden lion tamarin has made a dramatic comeback in the Brazilian rainforest, according to a study released in August. The snow leopard population in Bhutan is up nearly 40% since 2016, according to the WWF in September. Humpback whales are thriving along Australia's eastern coast, with a record 4,700 counted on one day in June. India's tigers have clawed their way back from extinction, according to a census in April. Native oyster reefs are being rebuilt and restored along Britain's coastlines, and the devastating deforestation of rainforests worldwide appears to have slowed this year. 

Women's sports

The popularity of women's sports has continued to grow rapidly worldwide. In August, a record was set for the highest attendance at a women's sporting event, with 92,003 people heading to Lincoln, Nebraska to watch a college volleyball game. 

In the UK, the Women's Super League match between Arsenal and Liverpool at the Emirates Stadium in October broke football attendance records, with 54,155 people watching the game. 

And TV audiences in the UK also hit record-breaking highs. A report by the Women's Sport Trust in November found that women's sports fans watched an average of almost 10 hours of coverage between January and October 2022, enjoying the Women's World Cup, rugby women's Six Nations and the Solheim Cup in golf. That figure was up from 8hr 15min in 2022 and 3hr 20min in 2021.

Cancer treatment

A pill previously only used to treat breast cancer was approved as a preventative measure in November, which could stop nearly 300,000 women from contracting the common disease. Anastrozole became the first drug to be licensed for a new use under a pioneering medicines repurposing programme led by NHS England. 

In the same month, researchers announced that using two inexpensive chemotherapy drugs ahead of radiation to treat cervical cancer cut the risk of women dying of the disease, or it returning, by 35%. 

And 14-year-old Heman Bekele won the title of America's top young scientist for developing a bar of soap that could help treat skin cancer.

Art

In September the heirs of a Viennese cabaret artist murdered by the Nazis in 1941 won a 20-year battle to get back part of his prized art collection. 

Fritz Grünbaum, who died at the Dachau concentration camp, owned dozens of works by Egon Schiele and other artists, which his wife was forced to hand over after his arrest in 1938. Labelled "degenerate", the Schieles were sold to fund the Nazi party, and seven wound up in museums and private collections in the US. Now, these have been returned to Grünbaum's heirs. 

In other good news, a Dutch art detective recovered a stolen Vincent Van Gogh painting worth up to £5.2 million, more than three years after it was stolen.

Aids

There is also a clear way forward to ending Aids by 2030, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAIDs) declared in a hopeful report in July. It revealed that 2022 had the lowest number of new HIV infections in three decades, and that treatment had averted almost 21 million Aids-related deaths in the same time. Several countries, including Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Botswana, achieved "95-95-95" targets, meaning 95% of people with HIV know their status, 95% of people who know they are HIV-positive are on antiretroviral treatment and 95% receiving treatment are being virally suppressed.

Nearly 300,000 women in England will be offered a preventative pill to help them avoid breast cancer.

The drug, anastrozole, has been available for years as a breast cancer treatment, and had already been recommended for prevention by the UK's health cost regulator. But it has become the first drug to be licensed for a new use under the "pioneering" multi-agency Medicines Repurposing Programme set up in 2021, said NHS England. 

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in England, with about 50,000 people diagnosed each year. While survival rates have improved, it still claims about 11,500 lives each year. For post-menopausal, at-risk women, the off-patent drug can nearly halve the chance of developing the disease if taken every day for five years. 

NHS chief executive Amanda Pritchard called the news "a new era for cancer prevention". The pills, which cost only 4p a day, would follow statins in having a "transformative", life-saving impact, she wrote for The Telegraph.

What is anastrozole and how does it work?

Anastrozole is a type of hormone treatment that lowers the level of oestrogen in the body. According to NHS England, the medication is an "aromatase inhibitor", which cuts down the amount of oestrogen a body makes by blocking the "aromatase" enzyme. 

Common side-effects mirror those of menopause, such as hot flushes and sweating, vaginal dryness or bleeding, tiredness and low mood. Patients usually take a small tablet every day for up to five years. 

Anastrozole has been used for many years to treat breast cancer, and its power to prevent the disease has been shown in key trials for years. It was first backed for use as a preventative option by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) in 2017, after scientists found that the protective effects lasted for years after women stopped taking the medication.

However, widespread prescribing was "stymied", said The Telegraph's health editor Laura Donnelly, because the drug was only licensed for treatment, not prevention, of breast cancer. The off-patent drug could only be prescribed "off-label" – "severely limiting take-up".

Why has it become available for prevention now? 

Anastrozole has been relicensed via a "repurposing" programme, which aims to get drugs licensed for one treatment approved for another if found to be effective. The programme, set up in 2021, is hosted by NHS England and supported by Nice, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and other agencies. 

It "builds on work done during the pandemic", said Donnelly, when arthritis drugs and steroids were "repurposed" as Covid treatments. Under the programme, the MHRA "licensed the new purpose" for anastrozole, after pharmaceutical company Accord Healthcare "agreed to apply for the licence on a not-for-profit basis".

The move to make anastrozole available to eligible women "represents a potential new frontier in the fight against Britain's big killers", said The Guardian's health policy editor Denis Campbell.

NHS boss Pritchard said the programme could "help us realise the full potential of existing medicines in new uses to save and improve more lives".

The move "adds to the NHS's armoury of preventative breast cancer medication", said Sky News, with tamoxifen and raloxifene already licensed to prevent the disease. 

If even 25% of eligible women take anastrozole, about 2,000 cases of breast cancer a year could be prevented in England, saving the NHS £15 million in treatment.

It is a "major step forward", said Baroness Delyth Morgan, chief executive at charity Breast Cancer Now.

Who is eligible?

Women who have a moderate or high risk of breast cancer are eligible for the medication. For example, a woman whose "first-degree relative (mother, daughter or sister) was diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 40 is likely to be considered for it", explained Donnelly. 

Those with two such relatives getting breast cancer – at any age – "could also be considered", as would those with "a mix of first and second-degree relatives (such as an aunt, grandparent or niece)". 

"Approaches to help prevent breast cancer at high risk are badly needed," Dr David Crosby, head of prevention and early detection at Cancer Research UK, told The Guardian. This is "a welcome announcement".

In Minneapolis, connections are being made over the dinner table

The idea behind Stories Behind the Menu is simple and time-tested: use food to bring people together. The program was started by Chaz Sandifer, who came up with the idea after chatting with an Indigenous chef in Minneapolis and learning that his restaurant is on land that once belonged to his ancestors. "Conversation and food — if we start there, we can have a great courageous conversation," Sandifer told the Star Tribune. The program started with 60 participants, and has grown to 150. Dinners are held four times a year, and there's just one rule: sit next to someone you don't know. The goal is to not only have people share their perspectives with new friends, but also learn more about other cultures through cuisine prepared by local chefs and caterers. Sandifer said she has found connections come easy, and people "really want to be educated on things they don't know and the biases they've learned. So I appreciate the open mind and heart." 

New gene therapy restores hearing pathways in deaf children

In China, four deaf children who participated in a gene therapy trial can now hear. As part of the study, the kids, who were deaf at birth, underwent a procedure where "doctors used a virus to add replacement DNA to the cells in [their] inner ear that pick up vibrations, allowing them to transmit sound to [the] brain," MIT Technology Review reported. One mother said that within a few weeks, her daughter could hear out of the treated ear, and one of the study's scientists said a child reported being able to even hear whispering. This first-of-its-kind treatment is specifically tailored for those whose deafness at birth was caused by a defect in the gene that produces a protein called otoferlin. Lawrence Lustig, a physician at Columbia University, told MIT Technology Review that "any hearing improvement I would call a total win, and getting patients to moderate hearing loss is remarkable. As a first step, this is huge."

Study suggests changing timing of chemo drugs boosts cervical cancer survival rates

Researchers have found that using two inexpensive chemotherapy drugs ahead of radiation to treat cervical cancer cuts the risk of women dying of the disease or it returning by 35%. The new treatment is a six-week course of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy, followed by radiation and weekly chemoradiation. In the trial of 500 women with cervical cancer, half underwent the new treatment and the rest received only chemoradiation. Researchers followed up with the participants five years later, and found that out of those who received the new treatment, 80% were still alive and 73% said their cancer had not returned or spread. Of the participants who only went through chemoradiation, 72% were alive and 64% said their cancer had not returned or spread. The study was announced at the recent European Society for Medical Oncology conference. The trial's lead, Dr. Mary McCormack, called the results of the new treatment "the biggest improvement in outcome in this disease in over 20 years."

Hope came to this duck in the form of a 3D-printed limb

A duck born with a twisted leg that left it unable to walk can now move around, thanks to a 3D-printed limb. Hope, a runner duck, was born in Germany to a flock kept as pets by Jennifer Laszenszky, a beautician from Altdorf. Hope underwent an unsuccessful surgery to try to straighten its leg, and Laszenszky moved on to Plan B: she contacted a 3D-limb designer, who made a special device with Velcro that attached to Hope's leg. To see Hope quacking "excitedly" after having the 3D limb attached brought "tears to my eyes," Laszenszky told Bild.

Teen creates smart spoon to make eating easier for everyone

Aarrav Anil used his interest in robotics to create a smart spoon that could change the way people who have hand tremors eat. The 17-year-old from Bengaluru in India said he was inspired to make the spoon after watching how hard it could be for his uncle, who has Parkinson's disease, to eat. Anil has all sorts of gadgets and gizmos in his room, and he was able to use sensors, motors and a 3D printer to make a smart spoon prototype. The sensors "detect tremors on one side and activate movement on the other," The Guardian explained, and this helps keep the spoon stable. The spoon will likely cost around $80, Anil said, which is less expensive than current options. His prototype is currently being tested at a college of physiotherapy near his home. 

A 14-year-old boy has been named "America's top young scientist" after developing a bar of soap that could help treat melanoma. 

Heman Bekele, a ninth-grader from Virginia, won the 3M Young Scientist Challenge after pitching a bar of soap, called Skin Cancer Treating Soap (SCTS), made from compounds that could "reactivate dendritic cells that guard human skin", said The Guardian. This means they can fight cancer cells. He declared in his submission that he wanted to cure cancer "one bar of soap at a time".

Bekele moved to the US at the age of four, and his idea "came from the early years of his life in Ethiopia", said The Washington Post. He wondered how many people he'd seen working outside were "at risk of sun exposure" and his memories "fueled his decision to focus his research on skin cancer". 

Bekele is a self-taught programmer, according to Wion, and he describes himself as "passionate about medicine, programming and making an impact".

He wanted his product to be something that was "as much of a constant in people's lives as possible" and was "most convenient and most trustworthy", he said. Creating a prototype with a combination of ingredients that could work effectively "took months of trial and error", and Bekele used "computer modeling to determine the formula". Although "similar creams and ointments exist", he doesn't believe soap has been used to fight cancers in their early stages, The Washington Post added.

Bekele hopes he can use the $25,000 prize to "refine his innovation", which costs $0.50 (40p) to make, and create a non-profit organisation "to distribute the soap to communities in need" in the next five years, said USA Today. This plan includes seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said The Washington Post. Bekele added: "There is still a lot left to do." 

A "feminist approach" to cancer care could save the lives of tens of thousands of women each year in the UK alone, according to a new global study.

Gender inequality and discrimination are having "resounding negative impacts" on how women experience cancer prevention and treatment, said the landmark report, published in The Lancet. The research found that 2.3 million women are dying prematurely of cancer each year, as gender inequality reduces the chance of avoiding risk factors and impedes timely diagnosis and access to quality care. 

The "patriarchy dominates cancer care, research and policy-making", concluded the researchers. They called for "the immediate introduction of a feminist approach to cancer". 

What did the report find?

The Lancet Commission on Women, Power and Cancer brought together global experts in gender, human rights, law, cancer epidemiology and treatment to analyse women's experience of cancer in 185 countries. 

The study underpinning the commission, published in The Lancet Global Health, found that 1.5 million deaths a year could be "averted through primary prevention or early detection". Another 800,000 deaths could be prevented altogether, "if all women everywhere could access optimal cancer care". 

About 24,000 women in the UK aged 30 to 69 are dying unnecessarily every year, it said. Six out of 10 of those deaths could be averted through earlier diagnosis, and the other four in 10 could be prevented with improved access to timely treatment. Women are dying in "the prime of life", said Sky News, with more than 5,000 children orphaned in the UK in 2020 due to cancer. 

"The impact of a patriarchal society on women's experiences of cancer has gone largely unrecognised," said Dr Ophira Ginsburg, co-chair of the commission and senior adviser for clinical research at the National Cancer Institute's centre for global health.

About 1.3 million women died in 2020 due to four known cancer risk factors: tobacco, alcohol, infections and obesity. But those factors were "widely underrecognised". Only 19% of women attending breast cancer screening in the UK were aware that alcohol was a major risk factor, the study found.

 What causes the gender health gap in cancer?

Cancer is one of the biggest killers of women, said The Guardian, ranking "in their top three causes of premature deaths in almost every country on every continent". But the disease is "often deprioritised", said the newly published report. 

Women in the global cancer workforce also reported frequent and severe gender-based discrimination, the report said, including sexual harassment. Around the world, that discrimination was "ubiquitous". 

The UK has been facing a medical "MeToo" moment, after a separate study found that one in three women working in surgery claimed to have been sexual assaulted by a male colleague at work. A report published in the British Journal of Surgery earlier this month warned that the "misogynistic culture" rife in hospitals posed a "significant risk to patient safety".

This conclusion was backed up by the Lancet report, which said that a "myriad of factors" can lower women's chances of avoiding cancer risks, or impede diagnosis and care. Women "interact with cancer in complex ways", as policymakers, doctors, patients and caregivers. In "all these domains", women are subject to "overlapping forms of discrimination" – age, race, ethnicity and socioeconomic background.

Of the 184 members of the Union for International Cancer Control (hospitals, treatment centres, or research institutes), only 16% are led by women.

Women were "often expected to prioritise the needs of their families at the expense of their own health", said co-author Professor Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy – and shouldered most of the unpaid caregiving work for cancer patients. The value of that ranged from 2% of Mexico's national health expenditure to nearly 4% in India.

The commission also criticised the "narrow" focus on "women's cancers" like breast and cervical forms of the disease – while leading causes of cancer deaths among women included lung and bowel cancer. Women's health is "often focused on reproductive and maternal health", said Ginsburg, "aligned with narrow anti-feminist definitions of women's value and roles in society".

A study published in Nature in August looked at the US gender disparity of lung cancer incidence, and found that the female-to-male ratio had "continuously increased" from 2001 to 2019.

What would a 'feminist approach' to cancer look like?

The Lancet commission recommended that sex and gender should be considered in policies and guidelines, with data on sex routinely collected in health statistics. 

That would involve "accessible and responsive health systems that provide respectful, quality cancer care for women". 

It also called for "fair, equitable and inclusive" pay standards for all cancer caregivers, and policies that reduce exposure to known cancer risks for women and girls. 

Scientific breakthroughs are being made all over the world, as experts seek to learn more about a variety of health conditions and ailments.

However, medical discoveries appear to have come on leaps and bounds in 2023 so far, with numerous fields of research making important advances.

Building upon last year, “landmark discoveries, some the culmination of decades of work, offer grounds of hope”, wrote The Independent’s Bevan Hurley.

Here are some of the good-news medical stories so far in 2023.

A simple test for breast cancer

Could a simple fingerprint test be used to screen women for breast cancer? That is the possibility raised by a study of 15 women that found that sweat on the fingers contains proteins that make it possible to detect breast cancer with a high degree of accuracy. Researchers at Sheffield Hallam University used matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation/mass spectrometry to analyse fingerprint smears from patients with benign, early or metastatic breast cancer. With machine-learning applied, the technology was able to predict the category of cancer with an accuracy rate of 98%. Current methods of screening and detection, such as biopsy and mammogram, are effective, but they can be uncomfortable and culturally unacceptable. The team said their trial had only provided proof of concept, but that with such promising results they hoped now to take the research to the next stage.

How to restore a sense of smell

People who have been robbed of their sense of smell by Covid may be able to get it back by sniffing an orange twice a day, reports The Daily Telegraph. In the early part of the pandemic, anosmia (the loss of the sense of smell or taste) was a common Covid symptom. It became rarer in later waves as new variants emerged, but while some sufferers got their senses back after a few weeks, others seemed to have experienced a permanent loss. Earlier this year, though, a study indicated that this may be reversible with “olfactory training”: taking ten second sniffs of common household scents such as lemons or coffee twice a day. By examining MRI scans, a team at University College London found that people with persistent smell lost post-Covid have impaired connectivity between the orbitofrontal cortex and the prefrontal cortex – but that there is no such “rewiring” in the brains of people whose sense of smell came back, indicating the damage is reversible. Dr Jed Wingrove, co-author of the study published in eClinicalMedicine, says that this raises the possibility that with olfactory training, the brain may be able to recover the lost pathways, and the sense of smell return.

Does BO have a soothing effect?

Anyone reading this while stuck on an overcrowded train may be sceptical, but researchers have found that the smell of other people’s sweat has a calming effect. The Swedish team asked volunteers to donate armpit sweat from when they’d been watching either a scary film or a happy one. They then recruited 48 women with social anxiety to sniff either one of the samples, or clean air as a control, as they also underwent mindfulness therapy. Their results indicated that those who’d sniffed the sweat had responded significantly better to the therapy. Patients who’d been exposed to sweat showed a 39% reduction in anxiety scores, whereas those who only had the therapy had a 17% reduction. The researchers, from the Karolinska Institutet, suggest that a person’s emotional response produces chemo-signals in their sweat that a third party can pick up. However, while presenting their findings at a medical conference in Paris, they said they’d been surprised to discover that the patients’ response had been the same regardless of which sweat sample they’d sniffed – whether from the scary film or the happy one. That being the case, it could just be the sense of another human presence that calms people down.

Babies need peanut butter

Roughly one in 50 British children have a peanut allergy, but researchers have calculated that this proportion could be slashed if all babies were introduced to peanut butter from about four months. Previously, the official advice was not to give peanut products to children until they were three years old; then in 2018, this was reduced to six months, in light of studies showing that delayed exposure to peanut products was causing most of the allergies. Now, however, a team from King’s College London, have looked at the data from various randomised control trials, and found that the real “window of opportunity” for curbing allergies is between four and six months. Using computer modelling, they calculate that if all babies were exposed to peanut products at that age, it would cut allergy rates by 77%. Parents feeding peanuts to their babies are advised to give them a teaspoon full of smooth peanut butter, mixed with breast milk or formula, three times a week. Babies should not be given whole or chopped nuts, as these can be a choking hazard. At that young age, allergic reactions are rare and usually mild.

Restoring movement after strokes

A woman who was left partially paralysed by a series of strokes in 2012 has had the movement in her hand restored, thanks to electrodes implanted in her neck. By disrupting connections between the brain and the spinal cord, strokes often cause paralysis and muscle weakness in the arms in particular. Although some signals can still get through, they’re too weak to trigger activity in the motor neurons that control movement of the muscles. In the journal Nature Medicine, a US team explained that they’d sought to restore movement by using electrodes to stimulate the sensory neurons that communicate with the motor neurons, and so make the latter more receptive to brain signals. Heather Rendulic said that since her stroke, aged 22, she had been “living one-handed in a two-handed world”. But after being fitted with the minimally invasive electrodes, she could eat with a knife and fork again.

A testosterone patch for women

Researchers are developing a testosterone patch for women, to help those whose sex drive has dwindled during menopause. Although testosterone is considered a male hormone, it is also essential for women. Its levels drop significantly during menopause, yet there is currently no replacement therapy licensed specifically for women available on the NHS. Instead, women suffering from low sex drive during or post-menopause may be prescribed gels that were made for men. They have to be applied daily and it can be tricky to judge the correct proportion of dose, partly because they were not tailored for women, but also because the gel is easily transferred to clothing. The patch being developed by Medherant would adhere to the skin to deliver the exact dose of testosterone for women, and would only need to be changed twice a week. It is set to be trialled this coming autumn, and if successful is likely to become available first in the UK.

Even a bad marriage can be good

Living with a partner might be good for your health – even if you are not happy together, a study has found. Researchers examined the health records of more than 3,300 people (all of whom were over 50) who had signed up to The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, and looked at data on several factors, including body mass index, rates of depression, and social relationships, as well as their results in HbA1c tests – reliable indicators of average blood-sugar levels. They found that being married or cohabiting was associated with lower blood-sugar levels, regardless of the quality of the relationship; and that when people left a relationship, their levels changed significantly. The study was only observational, but it could be that when people are cohabiting they make more effort to eat healthily, and with shared overheads, have more money to spend on healthy food. The researchers said that to protect people in this age group from type 2 diabetes, it would be a good idea to address the “barriers that impede the formation of romantic partnerships” in older people.

The distinctive “new car smell” may contain dangerous chemicals that increase a person’s risk of cancer, a new study has found.

“Cars, trucks and SUVs all have one thing in common,” said science and technology website Phys.org. “When purchased brand-new, they come with what has come to be known as that ‘new car smell’”, which is “made up of chemicals released into the air by materials used to make cars – a process known as off-gassing”.

Researchers from Harvard and the Beijing Institute of Technology monitored the levels of 20 chemicals commonly produced from materials inside an SUV over a 12-day period. They found at least one carcinogen known to cause cancer: formaldehyde. It exceeded the acceptable limit of 100 micrograms per cubic metre by more than a third.

The study, published by the journal Cell Reports Physical Science, indicated that such chemicals posed “a high health risk for drivers”, said The Telegraph.

The team also found acetaldehyde, a known carcinogen, exceeded Chinese government safety standards by 61% and described levels of benzene as being unsafe for drivers breathing it during long drives. Concentrations of the chemicals increased when the weather was warmer, the study found.

Oliver Jones, professor of chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, told The Telegraph that while the study did not look at the health effects of these chemicals, “it is the dose that makes the poison” and that “just because something is present does not automatically mean it's a problem; it’s about quantity”.

However, “‘new car’ smell is not without risks”, he continued. “We know from previous research that for some people it can cause health problems such as dizziness, nausea, and shortness of breath. Health-wise the best new-car smell is probably no smell.”

To mitigate the effects of the chemicals, the authors of the study suggested that drivers of new cars keep the windows open.

The number of people diagnosed with cancer every year in the UK is projected to rise to 500,000 by 2040, according to Cancer Research – but recent scientific breakthroughs provide a glimmer of hope for a cancer-free future.

Around 167,000 people die of cancer in the UK every year, according to Cancer Research UK, and that number is projected to rise by almost a quarter by 2040.

This rise is primarily due to an ageing population as well as high smoking and obesity levels, said the charity.

The recent rise in waiting times at UK hospitals isn’t helping the increase, said The Guardian. Fewer than 3% of NHS Trusts met the waiting time target of treating 85% of patients within two months of an urgent referral last year, leaving patients with their “lives left hanging in the balance,” tweeted Macmillan Cancer Support.

But in recent years scientists have made major breakthroughs in cancer research and treatments. Here are some of the latest discoveries.

A simple test for breast cancer

A fingerprint test could be used to screen women for breast cancer. That’s the possibility raised by a study of 15 women which found that sweat on the fingers contains proteins that make it possible to detect breast cancer with a high degree of accuracy.

Researchers at Sheffield Hallam University used a technology called Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption Ionisation Mass Spectrometry (MALDI MS) to analyse fingerprint smears from patients with benign, early or metastatic breast cancer.

With machine-learning applied, the technology was able to predict the category of cancer with an accuracy rate of almost 98%.

Current methods of screening and detection, such as biopsy and mammogram, are effective, but they can be uncomfortable for patients. The team said their trial had only provided proof of concept, but hoped to now take their research to the next stage after promising results so far.

Loyalty cards to detect cancer

Almost 95% of patients diagnosed with stage one ovarian cancer will survive for five or more years. But the odds of survival fall rapidly for later diagnoses – and the cancer is one of the most difficult to detect early.

Researchers at Imperial College London have found a novel mechanism for identifying cases sooner: supermarket loyalty-card data.

Symptoms of ovarian cancer include abdominal pain, bloating and appetite loss. These symptoms can be caused by far less serious ailments, and so women who experience them may not think to consult their GP. But they may buy over-the-counter treatments to treat their symptoms – and their purchases are recorded by supermarket loyalty cards.

For the study researchers recruited almost 300 loyalty-card users, more than half of whom had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and looked at the retailers’ data to analyse their shopping histories.

In a report published in The BMJ, researchers found a “noticeable increase in purchases of pain and indigestion medications among women with ovarian cancer up to eight months before diagnosis”.

More extensive studies are needed to verify the findings, but the authors hope it will be possible to use such data to create an alert system that would urge women to consult their GPs if they appear to be suffering from symptoms of ovarian cancer.

Ants can sniff out cancer

Dogs have been trained to sniff out cancer; now it turns out that ants can do it too.

The insects do not have noses, but they do have a plethora of olfactory receptors on their antennae. This gives them a very good sense of smell, which they can use to detect the volatile organic compounds that are released by tumours, and which can appear in sweat, urine and breath vapour.

Dr Baptiste Piqueret, of the Sorbonne Paris North University, had already trained ants to distinguish between healthy cells and cancerous cells grown in a culture.

His new study, published by The Royal Society, was designed to find out if they could do the same for a real tumour.

The research involved transplanting cancer cells from a human into mice, and letting them develop. The team then collected urine from these mice, and from healthy mice, and by giving sugar water with the cancerous mice’s urine, trained the ants to associate its smell with a reward.

Within ten minutes or so, the ants were lingering longer by the cancerous mice’s urine, hoping for a reward; by contrast, it can take six months to train a dog. The study was just a proof of concept, but it raises the possibility of ants one day being used as an army of cut-price cancer sniffers.

Cancer vaccine trial

Cancer vaccines could still be some way off, but in an effort to accelerate their development, the German firm BioNTech is going into partnership with the UK Government to deliver personalised immunotherapies for up to 10,000 NHS patients.

The “potentially groundbreaking” cancer vaccines will be based on the mRNA technology that it used to create the Pfizer Covid jab, said The Times.

Whereas chemotherapy kills healthy cells along with the cancer, mRNA treatments can prime the immune system with genetic code from the patient’s specific cancer so it attacks only the tumour.

Some of the patients in the vaccine trial will have already been treated for cancer; the hope is that the immunotherapy stops their tumours returning. The jab will also be given to people whose cancer is still spreading, in the hope that it shrinks the tumour.

Cancer-causing ‘Bond villain’ DNA

Scientists have found pieces of DNA which they say act “like Bond villains” in the way they help cancers spread, said The Guardian, but the discovery of this genetic material could “revolutionise” the treatment of the “most aggressive tumours”.

Tumours occur when a cell begins to act abnormally and divides uncontrollably. Tumour-causing genes can be “targeted” using various drugs and therapies, but resistance to these methods is common – and scientists now think genetic particles called extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) are to blame. These “genetic villains” are present in a third of all cancers, according to research from Queen Mary’s University.

EcDNA is found to have “quickly disappeared when threatened by cancer drugs,” and then “reappeared once it [is] safe for it to start causing damage again,” explained Professor Paul Mischel of California’s Stanford University, one of the leaders of the programme.

The discovery of ecDNA is “a game changer”, said Mischel. “We believe they are responsible for a large number of the more advanced, most serious cancers affecting people today. If we can block their activities, we can block the spread of these cancers.”

Pollutants known as “forever chemicals”, which build up in the body, may be toxic and do not break down in the environment, have been found at significant levels at thousands of sites across the UK and Europe.

A major mapping project found that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – a group of thousands of chemicals valued for their detergent properties – have made their way into water, soils and sediments.

The implications of the findings could be “staggering”, said NBC News. Here is what we know.

What actually are they?

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. It is an umbrella term for a family of thousands of chemicals – “about 12,000 at the last count”, said The Guardian – that are so robust they won’t break down in the environment for tens of thousands of years, hence the nickname “forever chemicals”.

They are used in many “everyday products” including non-stick pans, food packaging, carpets and furniture, said Sky News. Therefore, said The Guardian, “you may not realise it but you have an intimate relationship with PFAS” because the human-made chemicals are “in your blood, your clothes, your cosmetics”.

Can they harm humans and if so how?

They certainly can. A US study that ran between 2005 and 2013, involving the collection of blood samples from about 69,000 people living near a plant in West Virginia that emitted the chemicals, found that there was a “probable link” between exposure to them and six diseases: high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

We can come into contact with PFAS compounds by drinking contaminated water or eating food grown or caught near to where the chemicals are produced. Foods commonly linked are fish, eggs, or milk, or livestock that has fed on contaminated land.

But to “fall foul of the worst effects”, said The Guardian, you would need to be exposed for a “sustained period of time to pretty high concentrations of the substances”, so most PFAS “health scandals” in the US and Europe have been related to contaminated drinking water supplies.

What about wildlife?

Drawing on more than 100 recent peer-reviewed studies of PFAS contamination in animals, the US-based Environmental Working Group found more than 120 unique PFAS compounds in animals, including some endangered or threatened species.

“We were like, ‘holy smokes, this is shocking,’” David Andrews, a senior scientist who worked on the review, told The New York Times.

The affected animals included large mammals such as polar bears, tigers, monkey, pandas, reptiles, birds, small animals such as cats, frogs, and many types of fish. Voles have also been linked.

When researchers at Cardiff University examined the livers of otters across England and Wales they found PFAS in all 50 otters sampled, with 12 types of PFAS found in 80% of the animals.

Forever chemicals have been detected in killer whales near Norway and in bottlenose dolphins stranded along the northern Adriatic coast.

What is being done to tackle the problem?

A Defra spokesperson said the UK had “very high standards” for drinking water and that water companies were “required to carry out regular risk assessments and sampling for PFAS to ensure the drinking water supply remains safe”.

Another government spokesperson said ministers are “working with partners to improve our understanding of the exposure of wildlife to chemical contaminants, including PFAS” by “analysing archived samples to address data gaps and get a picture across all environmental compartments, including soil, river, lakes and groundwater”.

“We are undertaking investigations to understand and map out the sources of PFAS, using additional controls to reduce their risk to the environment,” they added.

However, said Science Alert, “phasing out forever chemicals is a slow process so far”, and while US manufacturers have already eliminated some PFAS, many of the thousands of varieties are still in use.

Methods for disposing of PFASs “typically rely on expensive and harsh treatments, some of which require high pressures and temperatures above 1,000C”, said the science journal Nature.

But a new approach revealed by researchers last year showed a way to break down long-lasting chemicals that scientists say is easier and cheaper than the harsh methods currently used. Brittany Trang, an environmental chemist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who co-led the latest study, told Nature: “There’s a need for a method to get rid of PFASs in a way that does not continue to pollute.”

Trang and her team showed “promise in breaking down one of the largest groups of PFASs using inexpensive reagents and temperatures of about 100°C”, said the journal.

A rare form of prostate cancer caused an American man in his 50s to suddenly speak with an Irish accent, reported Science Alert. Foreign accent syndrome (FAS) is a rare speech disorder that can cause a person to suddenly speak in a different accent with their pronunciation transforming in ways that resemble another dialect or style. In 2018, a woman from Arizona awoke “speaking like Mary Poppins”, noted the outlet.

Janitor locked in cell for three days

A janitor said she prayed when she spent three nights accidentally locked inside a holding cell, reported Fox News. Libia Vargas De Dinas, 72, was cleaning an inmate holding cell at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, Florida, when “the door shut behind her and she was unable to open it”, said police. She had no food but was able to drink from a tap above the cell’s toilet. “I prayed to God that he would take care of my health, body, mind, soul and spirit,” she said after her release.

Hole in King’s sock noted during mosque visit

King Charles appeared to have a hole in his sock during visit to a Brick Lane mosque. The small hole in the black sock on his right foot was visible as he “took off his shoes to adhere to custom”, said The Telegraph. The “thrifty King has long eschewed fashion trends”, said the paper, but “royal aides might be advised that His Majesty needs a new pair of socks”.

For more odd news stories, sign up to the weekly Tall Tales newsletter.

Dogs can spot the difference between an incompetent human and a mean one, a study has suggested. Dr Christoph Völter of the University of Vienna, who led the study, said the findings suggest that dogs possess what is known as a “theory of mind”, which means they can distinguish between somebody who would like to feed them a tasty treat but is prevented by their clumsiness, and another person who is dangling food in front of them just to tease them, noted The Times.

Company pays people to eat cheese before bed

Would you like to be paid to eat cheese before you go to bed? Sleep Junkie, a mattress-reviewing website, said it is seeking five “dairy dreamers” for a study that seeks to address the belief that consuming cheese or other dairy products before bed leads to nightmares. “We also want to look at, if this is true, do different cheeses have more of an effect than others?” said the company. Participants will be paid $1,000 for their trouble, noted UPI.

Ants can detect cancer smell in urine

Scientists have found that ants can detect the scent of cancer in urine, reported The Telegraph. The researchers exposed 70 ants - belonging to the species known as Formica fusca - to urine samples from mice with, and without, tumours. Professor Patrizia d’Ettorre, of Sorbonne Paris Nord University in Paris, France, said the findings show that ants “can be used as bio-detectors to discriminate healthy individuals from tumour-bearing ones”.

For more odd news stories, sign up to the weekly Tall Tales newsletter.

Thousands of tickets for concerts and plays in London will be given away next year to people who are normally unable to afford cultural outings. Some of the capital’s leading institutions, including the National Theatre and the Barbican, have signed up to the new Ticket Bank scheme, which will work with food banks and other charities to ensure that free or pay-what-you-can tickets are allocated to those most in need. The tickets will be those that are left unsold.

Teen cancer free after gene therapy

A 13-year-old girl with T-cell leukaemia has been declared cancer free, after being given pioneering gene therapy. Alyssa, from Leicester, had undergone chemotherapy and had a bone marrow transplant, but neither had worked. With no further treatments available, her prospects looked bleak. But she was then invited to take part in a world-first clinical trial, which involved her being given an infusion of donated T-cells that had been “base edited” to hunt down the cancerous cells without attacking each other. Within a month, she had gone into remission. The team at Great Ormond Street now plan to recruit ten more patients for further trials.

‘Eco dog’ trained to pick up bottles

A border collie from Nuneaton has been dubbed the “eco dog” by locals, because of his enthusiasm for collecting plastic waste. Scruff, who is 13, had always enjoyed picking up bottles on his walks, but he’d quickly drop them again – until his owners realised his potential, and trained him to bring the bottles to them, to be recycled. They estimate that Scruff has cleared the area of 1,000 bottles this year alone. He should be “working for the council”, said owner David Grant, given he can root out as many as 15 bottles per walk.

Technology honed in the battle against Covid-19 could see vaccines that target cancer readily available by 2030.

Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci co-founded BioNTech, the German company that partnered with Pfizer to manufacture an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine that would prove to be vital in the global fight to stem the pandemic. Now they say they have made further breakthroughs that could “lead to new treatments for melanoma, bowel cancer and other tumour types”, according to the BBC.

Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Şahin said that cancer vaccines based on mRNA might be ready to use in patients “before 2030”, The Guardian reported.

BioNTech has “several trials in progress”, according to the broadcaster, “including one where patients are given a personalised vaccine, to prompt their immune system to attack their disease”.

How could a cancer vaccine work?

As The Guardian explained, an mRNA Covid vaccine works “by ferrying the genetic instructions for essentially harmless spike proteins on the Covid virus into the body”.

These instructions are then “taken up by cells which churn out the spike protein”. The proteins, known as antigens, “are then used as ‘wanted posters’ – telling the immune system’s antibodies and other defences what to search for and attack”.

Şahin and Türeci hope that a vaccine targeting cancer will work through a similar process, although in this case, the vaccine would contribute to the creation of “cancer antigens which distinguish cancer cells from normal cells”, explained Türeci.

mNRA vaccines in the pandemic

BioNTech had originally been working on cancer vaccines before the Covid-19 pandemic swept the globe, but the company “pivoted to produce Covid vaccines in the face of the global emergency”, said The Guardian.

It hopes to develop treatments for bowel cancer, melanoma and other cancers, but there are “substantial hurdles” to overcome. Tumour cells are “studded with a wide variety of different proteins” that can make it “extremely difficult to make a vaccine that targets all of the cancer cells and no healthy tissues”, explained the paper.

Speaking to Kuenssberg, Türeci said that the pandemic had given the company an opportunity to learn how to manufacture mRNA vaccines faster, as well as providing a better understanding of how patients’ immune systems responded to mRNA.

The speed at which Covid vaccines were developed and rolled out during the pandemic has also streamlined the process by which medical regulators approve vaccines – all of which “will definitely accelerate also our cancer vaccine”, said Türeci.

Is a cure for cancer in reach?

While Şahin and Türeci have claimed that a cure for cancer is “in our grasp”, other experts are more sceptical.

Dr Otis Brawley, the former chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, told Canadian radio show The Current that he was “very hesitant to give a promissory note” that the new research could lead to a significant breakthrough in cancer treatment.

“Our history in oncology over the last 70 years is we’ve literally had leaders in the profession saying there’s light at the end of the tunnel,” he said.

But some remain hopeful. Kelly McNagny, medical genetics and biomedical engineering professor at the University of British Columbia, told the programme that BioNTech’s mRNA vaccine is “actually really promising” but warned it was not a panacea for curing cancer.

“This is a treatment for patients with cancer,” he told the radio show. “So it’s not that vaccine that you would think of getting a shot in your arm and you’re never going to see cancer.”

But McNagny said the technology will be “used to treat specific cancers, and that’s going to start the wave. So that’s what I would say is a realistic expectation.”

BioNTech’s mRNA cancer trials have shown “early encouraging signals” but it could be “several years” before we know whether the promised mRNA vaccine treatments “live up to the hype”, said the BBC.

“Every step, every patient we treat in our cancer trials helps us to find out more about what we are against and how to address that,” Türeci told Kuenssberg.

“As scientists, we are always hesitant to say we will have a cure for cancer. We have a number of breakthroughs and we will continue to work on them.”

Vegan diets are becoming increasingly popular, with an estimated 2% of the UK population now cutting out meat and dairy products.

With champion athletes such as Novak Djokovic, Lewis Hamilton and Venus Williams swearing by their plant-based diets, the health benefits of going meat-free are becoming more widely publicised.

But can a vegan diet make you live longer? And if so, how?

What is a vegan diet?

For some, veganism is about more than what you eat. It is a “philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practicable – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose”, said the Vegan Society.

A plant-based diet, which excludes animal foods such as meat and fish, dairy, eggs and honey, is part of a vegan lifestyle.

Do vegans live longer?

A 2013 study published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal found that “vegans have a 9% lower risk of death from all causes compared with omnivores”, according to Live Science.

Another study found a 12% lower risk, but while research published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition agreed that a vegan diet can lower rates of certain chronic diseases, it did not find evidence that veganism led to a longer life.

Nevertheless, vegan diets have been linked to “the reduction of risk for multiple chronic health conditions associated with heart disease, type 2 diabetes, certain types of cancer, and obesity”, Brooke Jacob, a registered dietician, told Live Science.

While “it is not surprising” that vegans may live longer, “as following a vegan diet is linked to reduced occurrence of chronic disease… more research is needed to definitively conclude that vegans live longer than non-vegans”, she said.

What are the health benefits of going vegan?

Avoiding the saturated fat in meat can provide a health boost. Processed meat like ham, sausages, salami, bacon, smoked and canned meat have been classed as class-1 carcinogens by the World Health Organization, “the same classification as tobacco smoking, asbestos, and radioactive barium”, said Vegan Food and Living.

Dairy and eggs, which vegans don’t consume, are also high in saturated fat. Vegans and vegetarians “on average” tend to eat more “nutritious, whole plant-foods”, said the publication.

Indeed, said Live Science, healthy lifestyle habits such as “eating whole foods, exercising, drinking enough water… might be more prevalent in the vegan community”. Similarly, a study that found that vegetarians live up to six or nine years longer also discovered that vegetarians are also more likely to exercise, be married, smoke less and drink less alcohol, said Quartz.

But while vegan fast food options “might sound like a guilt-free alternative”, they are “often worse for your health than the meat equivalent”, warned William Park at the BBC. For example, salt is usually added to vegan fast foods to “give the same meaty, rewarding sensation that would otherwise be missing”, he said.

And the NHS advises that “if you do not plan your diet properly, you could miss out on essential nutrients, such as calcium, iron, vitamin B12, iodine and selenium”.

How can I eat a healthy vegan diet?

Veganuary suggests that new vegans focus on consuming enough protein, as well as calcium, iron, vitamin B12 and other minerals.

“If we choose wholefoods, legumes, nuts, fruits, spices, herbs and some of the 20,000 edible plants that exist in the world, we can experience an incredible improvement in our health while enjoying some wonderful flavours,” said the non-profit group.

And the NHS states that “you can get the nutrients you need from eating a varied and balanced vegan diet including fortified foods and supplements”.

Stress causes “ulcers and heartburn”, said Lex in the FT. “Now the treatment of these afflictions is causing anxiety for investors.”

Shares of GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and the new GSK spin-off, Haleon, all fell sharply last week – shedding tens of billions of dollars – as investors took fright over the reported carcinogenic risk posed by the over-the-counter drug Zantac. Damages, if awarded, could be as high as $45bn, according to Morgan Stanley. And since rights of the over-the-counter version of Zantac have been transferred repeatedly, “it is unclear where any liabilities might sit”.

The issue of whether Zantac (the brand name for a drug called ranitidine) generates a probable carcinogen called NDMA has been building in the background for years, said Julianna Tatelbaum on CNBC: the drug was formally pulled from shelves in 2020, but legal proceedings have focused minds. The first of more than 2,000 cases begins in the US this month.

The pharmas believe their legal position is strong, said Fierce Pharma. “The overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that there is no increased cancer risk,” stated GSK. Even if that risk is demonstrated, it will be “tough” to prove that the companies “knew of the danger and failed to warn customers” before withdrawing Zantac.

The litigation creates an awkward situation for GSK and the recently floated Haleon, said Alistair Osborne in The Times. If liability becomes an issue, it could mean “an unseemly legal dust-up between two companies that were in the same group four weeks ago”.

Precedent suggests investors should certainly remain wary, said Lex. The Bayer/Roundup weedkiller saga – which ultimately cost the German pharma at least $16bn – “shows it is easy to draw a line under claims prematurely”.

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

In this week’s episode, we discuss:

Immunotherapy breakthrough

A small trial of a new immunotherapy drug has found that the treatment had a 100% efficacy rate against a form of colorectal cancer. It’s only one form of the disease and it’s a very small trial, but it’s a really strong result – and it comes on top of 15 years of astonishing progress. Someone diagnosed with metastatic melanoma in 2008 was likely to be dead within two years. Now people can live with the disease for decades and die of something else. Are we finally turning the tide on cancer?

Unionising tech

Workers at an Apple store in Maryland have voted to unionise, and in doing so have become the company’s first official US union. Other American Apple stores have tried, but without success. As UK-based unions flex their muscles this week with rail and Tube strikes, is this a sign that organised labour is making a comeback?

House revival

Drake's new album, Honestly Nevermind, signals a significant change in tone, and Break My Soul from Beyonce has a similar energy. Both have acknowledged that they turned to 1990s House music for inspiration – and in some cases for talent too. Drake’s album was produced with the help of house and electronic music producers Gordo, Rampa, Black Coffee and Alex Lustig. But why now? What is the appeal of a genre that had drifted out of the mainstream?

Rishi Sunak's plans to phase out the sale of cigarettes appears to have gained cross-party backing, making a total smoking ban in the UK a real possibility.

The prime minister used his Conservative Party conference speech to announce plans to raise the age at which people can buy tobacco in England year by year until it applies to the whole population. This would mean a 14-year-old today will never legally be able to buy a cigarette, putting England on a par with the likes of New Zealand, which introduced a similar law last year, in having "some of the strictest smoking laws in the world", Sky News reported.

While an outright ban – even one introduced over several decades – may prove controversial, its chances of coming into law have received a boost after it won support from Labour, as well as Welsh and Scottish governments, where laws on smoking are devolved.

"Political instincts on this issue are coalescing around a similar position," said BBC political editor Chris Mason, meaning the plan could be both "profound and long-lasting".

Pro: saving lives

Almost six million people in England smoke, and tobacco remains the single biggest cause of preventable illness and death. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, stroke and heart disease, with smoking-related illnesses costing the NHS £17 billion a year, according to campaign group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

An independent government-commissioned review, which last year recommended proposals similar to those announced by Sunak, argued that tackling tobacco use and supporting smokers to quit would help prevent 15 types of cancer – including lung cancer, throat cancer and acute myeloid leukaemia. Recent data showed that one in four deaths from all cancers were estimated to be from smoking.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme, the prime minister said his proposals represented the "biggest public health intervention in a generation", a claim backed up by England's chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, who stressed how beneficial the health improvements would be.

Con: black markets

Simon Clark, of smokers' lobby group Forest, told the BBC that "creeping prohibition won't stop young adults smoking" but it will "simply drive the sale of tobacco underground and consumers will buy cigarettes on the black market where no-one pays tax and products are completely unregulated".

The illicit trade in tobacco products "poses major health, economic and security concerns around the world", according to the World Health Organization, which estimates 1 in every 10 cigarettes and tobacco products consumed globally is illicit.

Writing for The Conversation, Dr Brendan Gogarty, of the University of Tasmania, argued that "laws that rely on prohibition to reduce the prevalence and harm from drugs generally fail to achieve their aims".

Pro: avoiding poverty

Smoking causes a disproportionate burden on the most disadvantaged families and communities, last year's independent review found. The average smoker in the North East of England spends over 10% of their income on tobacco, compared to just over 6% in the South East.

This mirrors research from 2015 conducted by University of Nottingham, which found parents who smoke were "plunging nearly half a million children into poverty", The Independent reported.

As smokers quit, said Sudyumna Dahal for The Conversation, household budgets "become easier, facilitating what a study in the British Medical Journal describes as an income transfer from male smokers to females and other family members".

Therefore, argue anti-smoking campaigners, banning smoking would bring greater benefits to the less well-off.

Con: risk to civil liberties

Smokers and the groups who advocate on their behalf argue that their habit is a civil right, even if it kills the smoker. In a report published in 2019, the smokers’ group Forest argued that "smokers are the canaries for civil liberties".

It added that the call for a ban "directly violates the harm principle that assumes a person has autonomy over their own life and body as long as they do not hurt other people".

As The Spectator editor Fraser Nelson pointed out on Twitter, plans to phase out the sale of cigarettes could lead to the absurd situation where pensioners will have to produce ID to prove which side of the ever-moving line of legality they are on.

"I'd love to live in a smoke-free world," wrote Rachael Bletchly in the Daily Mirror. "I wish people would stop wrecking their health with cigarettes. But I don't think it's the job of politicians to police other grown-ups' filthy habits. And I fear that Rishi Sunak's new smoking ban is just well-meaning, populist puff."

Pro: environmental protection

Cigarette smoking has several negative environmental impacts and banning smoking would bring these to an end. Smokers release pollution into the atmosphere, cigarette butts litter the environment, and the toxic chemicals in the residues cause soil and water pollution.

Tobacco is commonly planted in rainforest areas and has contributed to major deforestation, said Conserve Energy Future.

A 2013 report in the journal Tobacco Control found that cigarette manufacturing “consumes scarce resources in growing, curing, rolling, flavouring, packaging, transport, advertising and legal defence” and “also causes harms from massive pesticide use”.

Con: losing tax revenue

Taxation on smoking raises more than £8.8 billion per year for the Treasury, noted Politics.co.uk. The TaxPayers’ Alliance rejected the argument that smokers also cost the taxman more due to their health burden, arguing that smokers who suffer major health problems are more likely to die prematurely, reducing expenditure on state pensions and other age-related benefits.

If most people have a strong view on where to get the best cup of coffee, there must be almost as many opinions on the positive and negative effects of one of the world’s most popular drinks.

According to the British Coffee Association, Britons get through more than 98 million cups of coffee every day, but while some people are attracted by the flavour, others are after a caffeine kick.

This chemical – also found in tea and many fizzy drinks such as cola – can make people feel more alert by blocking sleep-inducing chemicals in the brain and increasing adrenaline production.

However, while these effects can be useful when caffeine is consumed in moderation, too much can leave the drinker feeling “wired”, or shaky and anxious.

Here are some of the pros and cons associated with coffee drinking:

1. Pro: cutting risk of early death

A new study has found that a moderate coffee habit could cut the risk of an early death by up to 31%.

Analysis of 171,000 people in the UK Biobank by a team from Southern Medical University in Guangzhou, China, discovered that those drinking a “moderate” amount, defined as one-and-a-half to three-and-a-half cups of coffee a day, had a lower risk of dying prematurely, irrespective of whether their coffee was sweetened with sugar.

Axios says the results matter because “previous studies have observed coffee is associated with a lower risk of death but didn’t distinguish between unsweetened java and coffee consumed with sugar”.

However, the report “is observational and cannot prove cause and effect”, warned The Times.

“While we can’t conclude definitively that drinking coffee lowers your risk of dying, what we can probably say is that drinking coffee with a little bit of sugar probably doesn’t cause much harm,” said Dr Christina Wee, deputy editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine which published the study.

2. Con: increased anxiety

Overstimulation caused by caffeine can leave some people feeling jittery and anxious.

Researchers at the Maryland-based Johns Hopkins University and the American University in Washington D.C. found that some people suffer from “caffeine use disorder”. Or as study co-author Laura M. Juliano put it: “While many people can consume caffeine without harm, for some it produces negative effects, physical dependence, interferes with daily functioning, and can be difficult to give up, which are signs of problematic use.”

Caffeine can also temporarily raise heart rate and blood pressure, which means anyone who has had a heart attack or been diagnosed with heart disease should reduce their intake to no more than 200mg a day, said Harvard’s Dr Stephen Juraschek. That is around the amount in about two mugs of instant coffee.

3. Pro: cutting risk of disease

“For years, coffee was believed to be a possible carcinogen, but the [United States Department of Agriculture] 2015 Dietary Guidelines helped to change perception,” said The New York Times. “For the first time, moderate coffee drinking was included as part of a healthy diet and when researchers added controls for lifestyle factors, like how many heavy coffee drinkers also smoked, the data tipped in coffee’s favour.”

Earlier this year, data presented at the American College of Cardiology's 71st Annual Scientific Session found that drinking two to three cups of coffee each day lowers your risk of heart disease and dangerous heart rhythms.

The UK Biobank study also found drinking a moderate amount of coffee led to a lower risk of dying from cancer or heart disease.

Other diseases where coffee has shown to have some of the strongest protective effects include Type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and liver conditions such as cirrhosis, liver cancer and chronic liver disease.

4. Con: harm during pregnancy

One group that has long been warned to avoid even moderate coffee intake is pregnant women, following studies that suggest high levels of caffeine in pregnancy can lead to babies having a low birthweight, and can even result in miscarriage.

While the NHS says pregnant women should have no more than 200mg per day, or two cups of instant coffee, a research paper published in 2020 suggested there were no safe levels for pregnant women.

The paper, published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine which looked at 48 studies on the topic, was described as “controversial” by the BBC.

Professor Jack James, a psychologist at Reykjavik University in Iceland, acknowledged that the work was observational, so could not prove definitively that any caffeine in pregnancy is harmful, but he said analysis, which links caffeine with harm, suggested avoiding drinks like tea and coffee entirely would be the best advice for mothers-to-be and women trying to get pregnant.

The BBC said other experts “strongly disagree, saying this is overkill”, citing the NHS guidelines which, along with the European Food Safety Authority and the American and UK Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend limiting, but not eliminating, caffeine consumption during pregnancy.

Podcaster and cancer campaigner Deborah James, whose frank account of living life with bowel cancer raised millions for cancer research and saw her awarded a damehood, has died at home aged 40.

James had been receiving end-of-life care at her home since revealing she had stopped treatment for her bowel cancer in May.

Her family announced her death in a post on her Instagram page, describing her as “the most amazing wife, daughter, sister, mummy”.

The host of the BBC’s You, Me and the Big C podcast had won plaudits for her “no-nonsense approach to talking about cancer”, having shared her experiences of living with the illness since her diagnosis in 2016, said the BBC.

After announcing her treatment was to end, she launched the Bowelbabe fund which raised £1m in less than 24 hours, and has gone on to raise more than £7m for research into personalised medicine for cancer patients.

Her family said James shared her experience of cancer to “raise awareness, break down barriers, challenge taboos and change the conversation around cancer”.

“Even in her most challenging moments, her determination to raise money and awareness was inspiring,” they added.

Bowel Cancer UK, of which James was a patron, said she had turned her bowel cancer diagnosis “into an incredible force for good” and would save countless lives through her campaigning.

Social media star

James, a mother of two and former deputy headteacher, was diagnosed “late” with incurable bowel cancer in December 2016, said the Daily Mail. She then began to share her experiences of living with the disease on social media under the name “Bowel Babe”, before becoming one of the three hosts of Radio 5 Live’s You, Me and the Big C in 2018.

The hit show was the brainchild of its late co-host Rachael Bland, who died of terminal breast cancer aged 40, just six months after the show’s launch.

James was praised for her candid approach to discussing cancer on the show, which she continued to co-host after Bland’s death alongside Lauren Mahon and Steve Bland, Rachael’s husband.

The show, which has featured a string of celebrities, has won plaudits for its “frank discussion” of cancer and how to deal with practical matters such as hair loss, finances and telling loved ones about the illness, said the BBC.

In an interview with The Times in May, James revealed she was receiving end-of-life care at her parents’ bungalow in Woking, where her husband and children, 14-year-old Hugo and 12-year-old Eloise, had gone to be with her.

“I want to die listening to my family, I just want to hear their banter and the normal buzz of life as I go,” she said.

James was honoured with a damehood just days after revealing her treatment for cancer had stopped. The Queen led the praise for James, saying she was “pleased” to approve the damehood. Boris Johnson described the honour as “richly deserved”.

“Through her tireless campaigning and by so openly sharing her experience she has not only helped in our fight against this terrible disease, she has ensured countless others with the Big C have not felt alone,” the prime minister said.

Formidable fundraiser

James launched her Bowelbabe Fund for Cancer Research UK in May as she announced to her Instagram followers that she was receiving at-home hospice care.

She told her followers that it was “the message I never wanted to write” but that despite having “tried everything… my body simply isn’t playing ball”.

“My active care has stopped and I am now moved to hospice at home care, with my incredible family all around me and the focus is on making sure I’m not in pain and spending time with them.

“Nobody knows how long I’ve got left but I’m not able to walk, I’m sleeping most of the days, and most things I took for granted are pipe dreams.”

She revealed on Instagram last month that she was “less and less able to leave the house, or bed” and felt “down”, but still continued to make memories with her loved ones. She also announced that she had completed her second book, How To Live When You Could Be Dead, which has topped the Amazon bestsellers list.

Cancer charities have also reported “a surge in people seeking bowel cancer information” since she shared that she was to stop active treatment for her cancer, said Sky News.

Following the announcement of her death, tributes have poured in for James.

Her mother Heather, whose handle on Instagram is Bowelgran, posted a tribute to her daughter on Instagram, writing: “My heart is broken. Love you forever.”

The director general of the BBC, Tim Davie, said she was a “true inspiration” and the way she talked about cancer “moved the nation, inspired change and undoubtedly saved lives”.

The prime minister also joined the tributes to James. “I'm terribly saddened to hear that Dame Deborah James has died. What an inspiration she was to so many,” he said.

“The awareness she brought to bowel cancer and the research her campaigning has funded will be her enduring legacy. Because of her, many many lives will be saved.”

More than a third of cancer cases in Britain are only diagnosed after visits to accident and emergency (A&E) departments, new research has found.

The study, published in The Lancet, examined more than 850,000 patients comparing hospital admissions from 14 areas in six comparable high-income countries and found that Britain is “among the worst in the world at detecting cancer early,” said The Telegraph.

Experts described the figures as “worrying”, the paper added, citing “fears the situation could worsen in coming years because of backlogs built up during the pandemic”.

Second-bottom Britain

The report by the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership and Cancer Research UK (CRUK) found the UK came second from bottom in terms of early cancer diagnosis. Only New Zealand had a higher proportion of diagnoses made in A&E departments.

In total, 37% of patients in England and Wales and 39% of those in Scotland were only diagnosed after being taken to hospital. In New Zealand the rate was 42.5%.

When looking at specific cancer diagnoses, 46% of all cases of pancreatic cancer were spotted only in an emergency. This figure was much higher in Britain, at 56% in England and Wales and 59% in Scotland.

A total of 34% of people in England and Wales and 35% in Scotland were diagnosed with bowel cancer in an emergency setting, while 47% of people in the UK were diagnosed with liver cancer in A&E.

The data was collected between 2012 and 2017, with CRUK warning that the outlook could have become worse since then due to disruptions caused by the pandemic.

What is being done?

Responding to the findings, Michelle Mitchell, CRUK’s chief executive, said: “We’d like to see governments across the UK take bold action on this within their cancer plans so that by 2032, fewer than 10% of cancer cases are diagnosed through emergency routes.

“If we want to build a world-class cancer service, we need to learn from comparable countries and ensure fewer patients are being diagnosed with cancer after an emergency referral or trip to A&E.

“The UK is already lagging when it comes to cancer survival – this study helps us understand why, showing that countries with higher levels of emergency presentations have lower survival.”

Last spring, the NHS in England introduced a new measure called the Faster Diagnosis Standard (FDS). It set a target of 75% of patients getting a cancer diagnosis, or having cancer ruled out, within 28 days of being urgently referred by their GP for suspected cancer.

But CRUK said that in the longer term, it hopes that NHS England will set the FDS on a “more ambitious trajectory” to ensure even more patients will receive a timely diagnosis. It is calling for the target to be raised from 75% to 95%.

A Department of Health spokesperson told the BBC it recognised “business as usual is not enough” and said it was developing a new ten-year cancer plan. But, it added, progress was already being made, with a network of 160 new diagnostic centres being opened.

An NHS spokesperson told The Telegraph that “the proportion of cancer patients who are diagnosed through an emergency route has been falling steadily” since 2017.

“NHS staff have been referring more people for urgent cancer checks over the last 11 months than ever before, with more than 200,000 patients checked in January alone,” they added.

A string of research breakthroughs are bringing fresh hope to cancer patients, scientists and charities.

Key steps forward in the developments of hormone, drug and radiotherapy treatments for cancer were announced over the weekend. And researchers revealed earlier this month that the technology behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has been used to design a jab that could help treat various forms of the disease.

Here are the five big new breakthroughs.

Abiraterone hormone therapy

Deaths in men with aggressive prostate cancer could potentially be halved by adding a hormone therapy to existing treatments, newly presented findings suggest.

In a UK trial, 2,000 men were given either standard treatment, consisting of hormone therapy with or without chemotherapy, or standard treatment plus a hormone therapy called abiraterone.

After six years, the death rate among the group given standard treatment only was 15%, compared with 7% in the group that also received abiraterone.

And the cancer had not spread in 82% of the patients given abiraterone, compared with 69% in the normal-care group, according to trial findings presented yesterday at the European Society for Medical Oncology’s annual conference

A total of about 48,500 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year in the UK alone. But experts believe the results “are likely to change the standard of care worldwide”, The Times reported.

Accelerated precision radiotherapy

In separate research, scientists hope that some men could be cured of prostate cancer within a week by using larger doses of precision radiotherapy.

Men who develop prostate cancer are usually treated in 20 sessions over a month, but scientists want to cut the therapy to just two high-dose treatments carried out over the space of seven to 14 days.

A trial is beginning this week at the London Royal Marsden Hospital to determine “whether it is safe to radically speed up treatment”, The Telegraph reported.

Patients could “come in, get cured, get on with their normal lives and forget about their cancer completely”, trial leader Dr Alison Tree, a consultant clinical oncologist at the Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research, London (ICR), told The Sunday Times.

Ovarian cancer drug combination

Thousands of women could benefit from a “revolutionary drug combination” that has been found to shrink tumours in half of patients with an advanced form of ovarian cancer, The Guardian reported.

The two drugs, called VS-6766 and defactinib, combine to block the signals that cancer cells need to grow, and “could offer a new treatment option for women with a type of ovarian cancer that rarely responds to chemotherapy or hormone therapy”, said the newspaper.

In a phase 1 trial led by a team at the ICR and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, 11 of a total 24 patients saw their tumours shrink significantly in response to the treatment. Responses in patients who had a mutation in a gene called KRAS were even more promising, with tumours shrinking in 64%.

Dr Susana Banerjee, research lead at the Royal Marsden’s gynaecology unit, said: “If these findings are confirmed in larger trials, they’ll represent a significant advance in low-grade serous ovarian cancer treatment.”

Breast cancer cure?

A new medication to treat an aggressive form of breast cancer has raised hopes of a cure after trials “shattered expectations”, according to its manufacturer.

AstraZeneca said three-quarters of a total 500 patients involved in international trials of its new drug, Enhertu, had shown no progression in their disease after 12 months, compared with a third treated with a different medicine.

Enhertu has already been approved by the UK’s medicines regulator and 34 other markets for women whose breast cancer has spread to other parts of the body and who have exhausted other treatments, such as chemotherapy.

David Fredrickson, head of oncology at the Cambridge-based pharmaceuticals company, “said there were tears and cries of surprise when scientists were given the data” on the new treatment for what remains the most common form of cancer, reported The Sunday Times’ senior business correspondent Sabah Meddings.

“It’s a special moment,” he said. “More women are going to have the opportunity to hear that their disease is responding to the medicine.”

Delivered through an intravenous drip in hospitals or clinics, Enhertu can only be used in patients whose cancer produces a protein called Her2 in large quantities on the surface of tumour cells, which accelerates their growth. The mutation is found in about a fifth of patients.

Vaccine hope

Sky News reported earlier this month that the scientists behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab are using the same technology to try to develop a vaccine that could help treat cancer.

In tests on mice, the same viral vector vaccine technology used in the Covid vaccine was found to increased the numbers of anti-tumour T cells that attack cancerous growths, helping to increase survival rates.

The scientists designed the cancer vaccine “to target two MAGE-type proteins that are present on the surface of many types of cancer cells”, the broadcaster explained. The vaccine technology has been shown to generate strong T cell responses needed to fight tumours.

A clinical trial of the two-dose vaccine involving people with non-small cell lung cancer is due to take place later this year. Professor Adrian Hill, director of Oxford University’s Jenner Institute, said: “This new vaccine platform has the potential to revolutionise cancer treatment.”

NHS lung cancer patients will be the first in Europe to receive a revolutionary new drug that can stop tumour growth.

The Times reported that Sotorasib will be fast-tracked to NHS patients after trials found that the medication halted the growth of lung cancer for seven months.

Sotorasib works by targeting a protein mutation that is known as the “death star” because it is spherical and difficult to penetrate. It is found in a quarter of all tumours. It then binds with this mutation, KRAS G12C, and makes it inactive, stopping cell division and cancer growth.

Taken as a tablet, Sotorasib is leading a new generation of drugs that appear “to have cracked the puzzle after four decades of research”. Doctors also hope it will “represent a breakthrough for pancreatic and bowel cancer treatment”, said the newspaper.

Around 600 lung cancer patients a year will be given the drug in England starting this month after an early access deal was struck with the manufacturer Amgen UK. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing the cost effectiveness of the treatment. It is being offered free of charge to the NHS. “Eventually,” said The Guardian, “thousands of cancer patients are likely to benefit from the drug.”

Professor Charles Swanton, chief clinician at Cancer Research UK, described the drug as one “of the most exciting breakthroughs in lung cancer treatment in 20 years, targeting a cancer gene that was previously untargetable” having “unravelled cancer’s inner workings”.

Amanda Pritchard, NHS England chief executive, said the health service “has a strong track record of securing best value access to world-class treatments for our patients” and said the latest deal “will save lives”.

Sajid Javid, the health secretary, added that the “ground-breaking new drug” will “make a difference to people across England and boosts our efforts to get people the treatment they need”.

The Telegraph suggests there are around 47,800 new lung cancer cases every year in the UK, making it the third most common cancer.

The Evening Standard said NHS England has also agreed deals for several other drugs, including a cholesterol lowering jab expected to prevent around 55,000 heart attacks in the next three years, and Osimertinib, another lung cancer drug that aims to reduce the chance of the cancer returning.

News of the Sotorasib deal comes as the health service continues its latest phase of its Help Us to Help You campaign.This urges anyone experiencing symptoms or unusual changes – such as a persistent cough that is not Covid, coughing up blood, a lump in the tummy or breast area, post-menopausal bleeding, or unexplained weight loss – to contact their GP immediately. All of these could be a sign of cancer.

The challenge that cancer poses for the NHS has increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Independent notes that analysis from the charity Macmillan estimates the NHS in England would need to work at 110% capacity for 17 months to catch up on missing cancer diagnoses, and for 13 months to clear the cancer treatment backlog.

A carpet-fitter from Wales insists he has solved the mystery of Stonehenge. Steven Tasker claims a “long-forgotten machine” was used to transport the giant stones 180 miles from Preseli Hills in Pembrokeshire to their final resting place on Salisbury Plain. He has recreated the contraption, which features a circular board balanced on planks. The 66-year-old claims it can “move any weight” and has already managed to lift a third of a tonne.

Woman hires ‘fake mum’ to spare grandmother grief

A woman in China hired an actress to pretend to be her mother for 13 years to fool her grandmother into believing her dead daughter was still alive. Cheng Jing recruited the woman to spare her grandmother from grief after her only child, Cheng Congrong, died of lung cancer aged 69. Initially the grandmother was sceptical because the impostor’s voice was unfamiliar, however, Jing said she had a cold. The family was able to maintain the illusion until the grandmother’s death.

Denmark builds world’s tallest sandcastle

Its football side may have failed to reach the finals of Euro 2020, but Denmark can boast a different victory after it built the world’s tallest sandcastle. At an impressive 21.16 metres in height, the castle is more than three metres taller than one built in Germany in 2019, according to the Guinness World Records. On top of the sandcastle is a model of the coronavirus wearing a crown because, says the designer, the virus is “ruling our lives everywhere”.

Agnes Arnold-Forster, research fellow in history of medicine and healthcare at the University of Bristol, on the unseen legacy of Covid-19.

We are living through an age of untold suffering. Over 500,000 people have died from coronavirus in the US alone, over 120,000 in the UK, and over two million worldwide. With Covid-19 dominating the news cycle, you would be forgiven for forgetting that other diseases still exist. And yet we know full well that diseases don’t stop just because one is hogging all the limelight.

There have been plenty of reports on the troubling cost of the pandemic and associated lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders on people’s mental health. For example, it has had a profound effect on those living with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Studies from Europe show that between a third and half of those suffering from OCD had their symptoms worsen during the pandemic.

Young adults seem to have been particularly affected by the emotional burdens of isolation and insecurity. In a recent survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, 63% of 18-to-24-year-olds reported symptoms of anxiety or depression, with 25% reporting increased substance use to deal with stress, and 25% saying they’d seriously considered suicide.

Crucially, these issues won’t abate as soon as the pandemic is over. Even when the crisis recedes, Dr Shekar Saxena of the Harvard School of Public Health suggests that 10% of these young people will have to live with the long-lasting effects of the mental illnesses they are currently enduring.

The damage done by the pandemic to mental health has already attracted well-deserved attention. It has highlighted the importance of looking beyond coronavirus deaths to assess the success of global pandemic responses. Cancer tells a similar, and equally distressing, story.

Cancer care in the pandemic

Throughout 2020, hospitals across the UK, US and Europe cancelled or postponed urgent cancer operations because they could not cope with the rising number of desperately ill coronavirus patients. Determining cancer prognosis is complex, but early evidence suggests that even a four-week delay in treatment can raise the risk of death by up to 10%.

The danger is not just physical, but psychological too. Despite these distressing figures of cancellations and waiting times, we don’t yet know much about the emotional toll these delays will have on people living with cancer today. Stories are, however, starting to emerge. One man, diagnosed with stage four bowel cancer in June 2020, had his December surgery postponed, and then “cancelled indefinitely”.

Even in the 19th century, doctors and patients alike were acutely aware of the importance of timely treatment.

As I argue in my book, The Cancer Problem, the “do not delay” principle in cancer treatment has its origins in the early 1800s. Surgeons implored cancer sufferers to seek their advice as soon as they had identified any unexpected lumps or bumps. And in their writings, patients expressed extreme distress at waiting for a diagnosis or cure.

Doctors lamented the patients who, “because of their praiseworthy modesty”, consulted too late for effective treatment. Medical textbooks designed to be read by patients told their readers that “were proper means used in due time, a cancer might often be prevented; but after the disorder has arrived at a certain height it generally sets all medicine at defiance”.

Looking at this longer history of cancer reminds us of the emotional and physical costs of any delays. After all, even if these waits have only minimal effects on patients’ survival or long-term health, we must also think about the psychological trauma of living in limbo.

Particularly when that limbo is associated with cancer, a disease that has long carried with it a sense of profound anxiety, so much so that in the 19th century it was often termed “the dread disease”. It is often understood as an alien invader, now very much outstaying its welcome.

As the Covid-19 crisis slowly abates, we must not just look back with regret at the number of people killed by the virus or celebrate the success of vaccines. We must instead assess the pandemic’s impact in the round and consider the physical as well as emotional costs of a disease that turned our world upside down.

When the next pandemic comes, we must be prepared to not only treat the victims of epidemic disease but to continue to provide the fundamental healthcare services we need to stay both healthy and happy.

Agnes Arnold-Forster, research fellow in history of medicine and healthcare at the University of Bristol.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

An experimental cancer drug derived from a poisonous plant could be used to boost the body’s natural immune response to Covid-19, new research suggests.

The antiviral, called thapsigargin, is being trialled as a treatment for prostate cancer patients. But scientists at the University of Nottingham believe the drug, derived from a Mediterranean weed that is highly toxic to sheep and cattle, may also be used to fight the coronavirus.

In what the team describe as a “ground-breaking study”, small doses of the antiviral were found to trigger a “highly effective” immune response against three types of human respiratory viruses including Sars-CoV-2, which causes Covid.

Study leader Professor Kin-Chow Chang said that the “hugely significant” findings “strongly indicate” that “thapsigargin and its derivatives are promising antiviral treatments against Covid and influenza” - and also “have the potential to defend us against the next Disease X pandemic”.

“A new generation of antivirals, such as thapsigargin, could play a key role in the control and treatment of important viral infections in both humans and animals,” he added.

Chang admits that more testing is “clearly needed”, with the Daily Mail noting that “no evidence exists that it will work on humans”.

However, the research conducted so far has found that thapsigargin is “effective at blocking symptoms when used before or during active infection in petri dish tests and on mice”, the newspaper reports.