More than half of sleep sessions end with the snooze button, with people sneaking in an extra 11 minutes on average, a new study reveals — but experts say it may not be a good idea. Researchers from Mass General Brigham analyzed data from the Sleep Cycle app, which included sleep habits from more than 21,000 people globally. Among the more than three million sleep sessions tracked, nearly 56% ended with the snooze button. MOST SLEEP-DEPRIVED CITIES IN US REVEALED IN REPORT: WHERE DOES YOURS RANK? The heaviest users of the snooze button — who used it for more than 80% of the mornings included in the study — slept an average of 20 extra minutes. These heaviest snoozers were also shown to have "more erratic sleep schedules" than those who used the snooze button less often, the researchers found."Unfortunately, the snooze alarm disrupts some of the most important stages of sleep," said lead author Rebecca Robbins, PhD, in the Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a press release. "The hours just before waking are rich in rapid eye movement sleep. Hitting the snooze alarm will interrupt these critical stages of sleep and typically only offer light sleep in between snooze alarms."

Proper handwashing could save a million lives a year, according to an expert — and yet many people are doing it improperly, often due to misconceptions surrounding the practice. Doctors recommend washing with soap and water for at least 20 seconds to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. The NFID 2025 State of Handwashing Report, recently released by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, provides details on Americans' handwashing habits (and mistakes). WHY YOUR LAUNDRY COULD BE MAKING YOU SICK AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT The report is based on a survey of 3,587 U.S. adults, conducted in November and December 2024 and March 2025."We have to recognize that there are a number of important infections that hand sanitizers are not effective at preventing," Hopkins said. One example is norovirus, a highly contagious stomach virus that is common on cruise ships and is also spread seasonally. The virus cannot be killed with hand sanitizer, but is "easily destroyed" with soap and water, according to Hopkins.Certain viruses are "encapsulated" and can be destroyed with either soap and water or hand sanitizer, the expert said. However, there is also an "unencapsulated" type of virus, which has an outer coat that does not break down from the alcohol in hand sanitizer. Using soap and water is a more effective way to kill the germs, the doctor noted. 2. Just coughing into your sleeve When people cough or sneeze into their sleeve, they could still spread germs afterward. "If you cough into your sleeve … go ahead and wash your hands with soap and water as well," Hopkins advised. COMMON MEDICAL TEST LINKED TO 5% OF CANCERS, STUDY SUGGESTS: ‘USE THEM WISELY’ "We also have to recognize that we often bring our hands up close to our face, touch our nose, our glasses, other parts of our face," noted the doctor, who is based in Arkansas. "If we have bacteria or viruses on our hands, we can introduce them into our mucous membranes, where we can get infections."

Note the time delay "The [cortisol] decline is different for everyone but typically occurs one-and-a-half to two hours after you wake," Zumpano said. That's the best time to have coffee, Zumpano said. SLEEP EXPERT REVEALS TOP FOODS AND DRINKS KEEPING YOU UP AT NIGHT That way, "you can rely on your body's natural alert system - cortisol - and when it declines, then you use caffeine to provide the boost.""There is no specific time that's best to drink caffeine," the dietitian added. "[It's] based on when you wake and your natural rise and drop in cortisol." Yet adhering to the body's natural wake-up processes can help sustain energy levels by avoiding one big cortisol, caffeinated crash. COFFEE CREAMER HEALTH RISKS: WHAT TO KNOW, WHAT TO CHOOSE INSTEAD Fox News Digital previously reported on smart ways to consume coffee, with an expert noting that coffee drinking should be tailored to each individual. "For some people, waking up and having a glass of water to rehydrate and then having coffee works well – but for others the morning ritual of having a cup of coffee first thing upon awakening is just too good to give up," said Wendy Troxel, a Utah-based sleep expert and senior behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation.

The Pandemic Agreement, just adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO), is a landmark for global public health. Had such an agreement been in place before 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic would have looked very different. The agreement now means that when the next pandemic begins brewing, the world will be much better equipped to mitigate or even prevent it. What exactly will the agreement do? In a nutshell, 124 countries have pledged to prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics. The countries that formally ratify the agreement will be bound to uphold a number of commitments including investing in health infrastructures, sharing intellectual property, and engaging in technology transfer. Advertisement One of the biggest benefits promises to be the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System. This will require U.N. member states to share information and data about potential pandemic viruses, including sequencing of new viruses or variants, as well as share relevant vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostic technologies. Vaccine manufacturers in participating countries will be expected to provide 20% of pandemic vaccines in real time to the WHO to distribute globally, including to poorer countries and those most in need of them. Of these vaccines, member countries will donate 10% of them for free. Such an arrangement would have saved many lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first few years, the unequal access to vaccines was one of the biggest challenges, with one study finding that up to half the COVID-19 deaths in many lower income countries could have been avoided with a more equitable supply of vaccines. Read More: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: Global-Health Architect Conspicuously absent from the agreement is the U.S., which has historically played a key role in global health, from HIV/AIDS to malaria and beyond. Although 11 countries abstained from voting, the U.S.'s omission due to its decision to withdraw from the WHO is notable. COVID-19 taught us that the health of people on the other side of the world is inexorably tied to our own. Isolationism doesn't work when it comes to infectious disease. Even countries that took the most drastic measures to contain COVID-19, like China, eventually succumbed to rapid and extensive spread of the virus when they relaxed international travel or strict lockdowns and social-distancing measures. Preventing the next pandemic will require us to ensure that all countries, including low- and middle-income ones, have the necessary resources to prevent outbreaks from happening and to quash them before they spread. Advertisement The agreement also proves that multilateralism and a desire for global cooperation are still shared goals among most countries. Some critics of the agreement, including U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, have argued that it would be a threat to national sovereignty or freedom, in that it would compromise countries’ ability to make pandemic-related health policy decisions. This is not the case. The agreement states that it “does not prejudice the sovereign right” of countries to consider it in accordance with their own national constitutions. Global agreements or treaties of this nature are rare. But when they do come about, they are far from being tokenistic documents full of legalese. Although the Pandemic Agreement is less formal and legally binding, several U.N. global treaties have already saved millions of lives. The Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, the first WHO treaty, has reduced tobacco use by one-third over the past 20 years and has saved lives with policies like indoor smoking bans.

The Pandemic Agreement, just adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO), is a landmark for global public health. Had such an agreement been in place before 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic would have looked very different. The agreement now means that when the next pandemic begins brewing, the world will be much better equipped to mitigate or even prevent it. What exactly will the agreement do? In a nutshell, 124 countries have pledged to prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics. The countries that formally ratify the agreement will be bound to uphold a number of commitments including investing in health infrastructures, sharing intellectual property, and engaging in technology transfer. Advertisement One of the biggest benefits promises to be the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System. This will require U.N. member states to share information and data about potential pandemic viruses, including sequencing of new viruses or variants, as well as share relevant vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostic technologies. Vaccine manufacturers in participating countries will be expected to provide 20% of pandemic vaccines in real time to the WHO to distribute globally, including to poorer countries and those most in need of them. Of these vaccines, member countries will donate 10% of them for free. Such an arrangement would have saved many lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first few years, the unequal access to vaccines was one of the biggest challenges, with one study finding that up to half the COVID-19 deaths in many lower income countries could have been avoided with a more equitable supply of vaccines. Read More: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: Global-Health Architect Conspicuously absent from the agreement is the U.S., which has historically played a key role in global health, from HIV/AIDS to malaria and beyond. Although 11 countries abstained from voting, the U.S.'s omission due to its decision to withdraw from the WHO is notable. COVID-19 taught us that the health of people on the other side of the world is inexorably tied to our own. Isolationism doesn't work when it comes to infectious disease. Even countries that took the most drastic measures to contain COVID-19, like China, eventually succumbed to rapid and extensive spread of the virus when they relaxed international travel or strict lockdowns and social-distancing measures. Preventing the next pandemic will require us to ensure that all countries, including low- and middle-income ones, have the necessary resources to prevent outbreaks from happening and to quash them before they spread. Advertisement The agreement also proves that multilateralism and a desire for global cooperation are still shared goals among most countries. Some critics of the agreement, including U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, have argued that it would be a threat to national sovereignty or freedom, in that it would compromise countries’ ability to make pandemic-related health policy decisions. This is not the case. The agreement states that it “does not prejudice the sovereign right” of countries to consider it in accordance with their own national constitutions. Global agreements or treaties of this nature are rare. But when they do come about, they are far from being tokenistic documents full of legalese. Although the Pandemic Agreement is less formal and legally binding, several U.N. global treaties have already saved millions of lives. The Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, the first WHO treaty, has reduced tobacco use by one-third over the past 20 years and has saved lives with policies like indoor smoking bans. Advertisement Read More: We Are Still Not Ready for the Next Pandemic Whilst global agreements require financial and political investment, they can also be cost-effective in the long run. The Minamata Convention, a U.N. treaty designed to reduce the effects of mercury on health and the environment, is projected to save $339 billion by 2050 in the U.S. alone. Beyond pandemics, the agreement also urges countries to take collaborative action that will benefit people’s health in myriad ways. For example, the agreement directs participating countries to “take appropriate measures to develop, strengthen and maintain a resilient health system,” and to take into consideration the need for equity and advancing universal health coverage. Generally speaking, when COVID-19 hit, the more equitable a country’s health care system, the better equipped it was to deal with the disease. Of course, better, fairer health care systems are an end in themselves; they will reduce health inequalities and improve a range of health outcomes, including non-communicable diseases

If you’re like a lot of people, you’re finding it harder and harder to stomach climate change—literally. A warming world leads to all manner of health problems, including increased risk of cardiovascular disease, exacerbation of pulmonary conditions like asthma and COPD, and mental health problems including depression and anxiety. Increasingly, however, climate change is being implicated in a range of illnesses of the gut, such as diarrheal diseases, irritable bowel syndrome, intestinal infection, and more. While the mechanism behind the increase in pulmonary disease in a warmer world is more or less direct—breathing hot, dirty, sooty air isn’t good for anyone’s lungs—the gut connection is more nuanced and multifactorial, involving crop growth, contaminated water supplies, droughts, heat waves, malnutrition, and the microbiome of the soil. None of this is good for us; all of it can affect any of us. Here’s what you need to know about the climate-gut connection. Advertisement How high temperatures directly affect the gut The body is an exquisitely balanced system. We operate optimally at 98.6°F; nudge us up to just 99°F and we already start feeling unwell. It’s no wonder then that if the planet runs a fever we will pay a price. “Higher temperatures can increase stress hormones in the body, and that really affects gut physiology,” says Elena Litchman, professor of aquatic ecology at Michigan State University. The principal stress hormone is cortisol, which is produced by the adrenal gland. Cortisol affects multiple parts of the body, but can have an especially powerful impact in the gut, which is lined with immune system cells; epithelial cells, which form a barrier between the intestines and the rest of the body; and enteroendocrine cells, which help regulate the hormonal environment of the gut. All of these cells have cortisol receptors, and all of them may become dysregulated if cortisol levels climb too high. Cortisol can also speed or slow the time it takes for food to transit through the intestines, which can lead to what’s known as dysbiosis—or an imbalance in the number, type, and distribution of the trillions of bacteria, viruses, and fungi that make up the microbiome inhabiting the digestive tract.

Glioblastoma, the most aggressive and deadly type of brain cancer, is known to have a very poor prognosis — but a new study suggests that a pain-relieving drug could extend survival.Researchers at Mass General Brigham have found that an already-approved medication — a pain reliever and anti-seizure medication called gabapentin — has been linked to improved survival in patients with glioblastoma. The findings were published in Nature Communications last week. MICHAEL BOLTON HAD STRANGE SYMPTOMS BEFORE BRAIN CANCER DIAGNOSIS: ‘SOMETHING’S WRONG’ Inspired by previous mouse studies that showed gabapentin’s potential in targeting tumors, the researchers studied the medical outcomes of nearly 700 patients with glioblastoma.The patients who were taking the drug survived four months longer than those who were not — 16 months compared to 12 months — which was described as "statistically significant." "Ultimately, our goal was to highlight the emerging role of cancer neuroscience in GBM progression and emphasize the importance of exploring creative strategies to therapeutically target this evolving neural-tumor axis," lead author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, a clinical fellow in the Department of Neurosurgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital, told Fox News Digital. BREAST CANCER DRUG COULD HELP PROLONG SURVIVAL FOR CHILDREN WITH BRAIN TUMORS, STUDY FINDS The team was surprised by the survival benefit, Bernstock noted. "It’s always incredible to see a hypothesis come to life," he said. "I was also really pleased to see the decrease in serum TSP-1 levels in the UCSF cohort, potentially positioning it as a biomarker of response." man puts pill in mouth

In a statement from his personal office on May 18, former President Joe Biden revealed he has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones. “While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,” his office said in a statement. “The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.” Recent studies show that survival for men with prostate cancer that has spread to the bone is just under two years. But this form of cancer, though aggressive, can sometimes be controlled. Here's what oncologists who treat prostate cancer say are the most common strategies for treating a cancer like Biden's, and some of the challenges. Advertisement The latest ways to curb aggressive prostate cancer “The good news is this: we have now entered an era of different treatments that I call therapy intensification where we are trying to attack cancer with a multi-modality approach,” says Dr. Maha Hussain, deputy director of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “We can come up with a significant prolongation of life by comparison to when I entered the field." She has seen patients with prostate cancer that has spread survive and "live many, many years.” Most prostate cancer is fueled by the male hormone testosterone, so the most effective strategies to control it starve the cancer by cutting off its supply, say experts. Historically, doctors have removed the testes—the main source of the hormone—but today, pills and injections can suppress testosterone not just in the testes but in other organs that produce small amounts, such as the adrenal glands, as well. Doctors also now add chemotherapy to hormone-suppression to better control cancer growth.

Alice Park by Alice Park Senior Correspondent The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will no longer recommend yearly COVID-19 vaccines for kids and most adults. In an editorial article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Vinay Prasad, the newly appointed head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and research at the FDA, and Dr. Martin Makary, FDA commissioner, explained their plan for how the FDA will evaluate and recommend COVID-19 vaccines going forward. Until now, federal guidance has recommended that everyone six months or older receive a COVID-19 vaccine targeting the latest circulating version of the virus to maximize their chances of avoiding severe disease. Advertisement The new FDA leadership still recommends that groups at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 receive yearly COVID-19 shots. This includes seniors, adults with weakened immune systems, and people with underlying health conditions like cancer. Some people in these groups may even qualify for a second shot in a given year, depending on their risk factors. But for people at lower risk, the FDA leadership is instead pushing for additional studies to test whether people in the general population who get an annual shot have fewer COVID-19 symptoms, less-severe cases, and fewer hospitalizations and deaths compared to those receiving a placebo. Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Novavax, which make the COVID-19 vaccines, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the changes. “We simply don’t know whether a healthy 52-year old woman with a normal BMI who has had COVID-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a COVID-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose," Prasad and Makary write in the editorial. "This policy will compel much-needed evidence generation.” Advertisement Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang Branded Content Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang By China Daily Read More: How Having a Baby Is Changing Under Trump Prasad and Makary write that the proposed studies would not interfere with the current timeline of approving the yearly COVID-19 vaccines, since they would be conducted after the vaccine is released in what the agency calls post-marketing studies. The FDA’s advisory committee of experts is meeting on May 22 to review data from the World Health Organization about which variants to target in next season’s vaccine, which would be distributed in the fall. Even if the additional studies won’t delay the availability of the next COVID-19 shot, they would place an additional burden on pharmaceutical companies to conduct another trial, which could add to the cost of the vaccine for the public, says Dr. Paul Offit, a member of that FDA advisory committee and professor at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Another challenge is that in order to conduct this type of trial, some people would have to receive a placebo and therefore potentially be less protected from COVID-19. “Anybody can catch this virus and be hospitalized and killed," Offit says. "We know the vaccine works and probably saved three million lives, and we know that the virus is still circulating and still causes harm.” Because of that continued risk, he says it’s not clear whether an institutional review board—which evaluates all study designs involving human volunteers—would consider this an ethical trial.

Acompany can offer all the free snacks and on-site massages in the world—but if the people don’t make you feel supported, you’re probably still not happy at your job. To an increasing extent, “the corporate world is understanding that relationships and the culture of relationships at work is the new competitive edge,” says Esther Perel, a psychotherapist who hosts the popular couples’ therapy podcast Where Should We Begin? In May, Perel shifted her focus from improving relationships at home to bettering those at work. She released a 100-question card game with prompts designed to get people to open up and share stories, in hopes of improving team dynamics and fixing a workplace’s culture. Each prompt targets one of her four pillars of healthy workplace relationships—trust, belonging, recognition, and collective resilience—and it’s designed to be played at an off-site meeting, while onboarding a new employee, during a one-on-one check-in, or at an after-work happy hour. “This goes way beyond your typical icebreaker,” Perel says: Telling personal stories at work can make people feel less siloed and improve collaboration. At the average all-hands meeting, for example, “You see where the eyes go, you see who's listening, you see the blank stares, you see people on their phone,” she says. “Once a person starts to tell a story, everybody's eyes lift. Now you come to life, you're interested, and you elicit curiosity.” Advertisement We asked Perel how to level up your workplace relationships—and she suggested starting with these seven questions. “What brings out the best in you?” Asking a colleague to share exactly what helps them excel is a “beautiful” way to grow your connection. “It demands some form of self-knowledge and self-awareness,” Perel says. To answer candidly, your colleague will need to understand what encourages, motivates, and pushes them. When you have that information, you no longer have to guess what they prefer; for example, you might learn that when they’re receiving feedback, they want you to get right into it rather than mincing your words. If a colleague asked Perel this question, her response would “tell you what I know about myself, what you should know about me, and how we can work better together,” she says. “It’s a question that builds trust and tells you what recognition is for me.