Political leaders from across parties in the U.S. extended their sympathies to Democratic former President Joe Biden, 82, after his office announced Sunday that he was diagnosed with an “aggressive” form of prostate cancer. Biden, who served as Vice President from 2009 to 2017 and President from 2021 to January, and his family are reviewing treatment options, according to the announcement. His Administrations had made addressing cancer a priority, launching the “Cancer Moonshot” initiative to try to make it such that “a diagnosis isn’t a death sentence.” Biden lost his son Beau in 2015 to brain cancer. Advertisement Read More: What Does a Gleason Score of 9 Mean? Understanding Biden’s Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Here are some of the messages of support for Biden that have come in since his diagnosis was made public: Donald Trump President Donald Trump, who has constantly attacked Biden’s health and cognitive ability from the 2024 campaign trail to the present, sent well-wishes to Biden in a post on his social media platform Truth Social. “Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis,” Trump said, referencing the First Lady. “We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.”

Working long hours comes with a slew of health issues, from too much stress to disturbed sleep, heart conditions, and mental-health disorders like anxiety and depression. It may even cause changes in the brain, according to a new report published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Researchers from Korea found that people who regularly work long hours had significant brain differences compared to people who worked less. Wanhyung Lee, from the department of preventive medicine at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, and his team studied 110 health care workers—some of whom worked more than 52 hours a week, which under Korean law constitutes overwork, and some of whom worked less. All had MRIs that allowed the scientists to analyze differences in the volume and concentration of certain brain tissues. Advertisement People who were overworked showed changes in 17 brain regions compared to those who worked typical hours. These differences included areas responsible for executive functions like logical reasoning, as well as managing emotions. Lee says the results surprised him—in part because they suggest that the brain changes in response to stress and anxiety, with some potential negative consequences. “We anticipated that prolonged stress from overwork would affect brain structure, but finding increased volume in certain brain areas was somewhat unexpected,” he wrote in an email to TIME. “Our results suggest a potential neuroadaptive response, meaning the brain might initially try to compensate for increased cognitive and emotional demands. These surprising findings underscore the complexity of how the brain responds to prolonged occupational stress.” Advances in brain imaging now make it possible to detect even small volume differences, Lee says. “These technological breakthroughs have empowered researchers to explore previously invisible biological changes induced by prolonged stress or excessive workloads, thus opening up an entirely new dimension in occupational and environmental health research.”

The federal government is launching its first in-depth review of infant formula nutrients in nearly 30 years. While the move may spark questions among families, pediatric experts say there is nothing to be concerned about: FDA-approved infant formula remains one of the most rigorously regulated food products in the country and is perfectly safe. Still, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say it’s time for a fresh look. On Tuesday, the agencies announced that they had issued a request for information about infant formula nutrients. Advertisement The review is part of an initiative launched in March, called Operation Stork Speed, which is meant to “ensure the safety, reliability, and nutritional adequacy of infant formula for American families,” according to HHS. It’s not yet clear who will be leading the review, but the FDA is set to convene a panel of experts in June that will be accessible to the public. “Operation Stork Speed brings radical transparency to ingredients in infant formula and puts science front and center,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in the press release. “Every child has a fundamental right to a healthy start. We’re giving parents the truth and the tools to make that happen.” Read More: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Says Americans Should Not Take Medical Advice From Him Could infant formula change? Experts say that any effort to ensure that infant formula contains the best nutrients is important, but they caution that this review is not a sign that infant formula is dangerous, nor do they expect it to trigger dramatic changes. According to HHS, the FDA “regularly reviews individual nutrient requirements for infant formula,” but the last time the agency conducted an in-depth review of infant formula was in 1998. Dr. Steven Abrams, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, says doing a comprehensive analysis is “overdue” because there have been new developments in science and guidance since 1998. Abrams, who is due to attend the June meeting with the FDA, says it’s critical that the research is conducted slowly, cautiously, and rigorously. He says that experts, including himself, want “to make sure that [the review] doesn’t become motivated by concerns that infant formula, as it currently exists, is inherently unsafe. That’s not true.” Dr. Mark Corkins, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, says it’s possible that the review may result in recommendations for a little more of some nutrients, like Vitamin D, and a little less of other ingredients, like iron, but: “I don’t think there’s going to be any huge, earth-shaking changes that comes out of this.

If you’re the type of person who cares about conversational etiquette, the idea of interrupting someone might make you cringe. But sometimes, cutting in is necessary. However, you should only do it if your conversation partner is “saying something factually inaccurate,” says Jefferson Fisher, a Texas-based lawyer and author of The Next Conversation: Argue Less, Talk More. “It’s not that you’re arguing with their opinion; you’re arguing an actual issue of legitimate fact.” With the right words, you can do it in a way that (probably) won’t irritate whoever is on the receiving end. Advertisement Be upfront The best way to interrupt someone is to acknowledge what you’re doing. Start with the words “I know I’m interrupting” or “I need to interrupt.” With this preamble, “people don't get defensive, because it’s you acknowledging what you’re doing,” Fisher says. “If you’re talking and you said something inaccurate, I would say, ‘Angela, I need to interrupt you,’ or ‘I know I'm interrupting you.’ You won't see it as an affront or as me just assuming that what I’m saying is more important than what you're saying.” Read More: How to Say ‘I Told You So’ in a More Effective Way The same philosophy applies to social gatherings. If you want to steal someone away who is already in conversation with another guest, announce what you're doing instead of grabbing the person’s arm and pulling them away. “If somebody comes up and says, ‘I need to take Angela for a minute,’ and then pulls you, now I understand the dynamic,” Fisher says. “It’s like giving a roadmap for what needs to happen.” Voicing what you’re doing is almost always useful, he adds. If you're in an argument with someone and you suddenly slam the door shut and leave the room, for example, it probably won't go over well. If you explicitly state that you need to leave the room, however, you’re at least making your intentions clear and setting expectations. “When you claim it, you control it,” Fisher says. “When you say something out loud, it shows your confidence in what you’re doing, which is powerful in communication.”

Gene therapy has always held enormous promise to correct genetic diseases, but turning that potential into treatments has been challenging. In a study published May 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, researchers led by teams at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania report on the first use of the gene-editing technology CRISPR in a customized therapy designed to treat one patient with a rare disease. CRISPR is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat sickle-cell anemia and beta thalassemia, in which patients receive the same gene therapy to treat an abnormality in their red blood cells. Advertisement In the latest case, the scientists developed a CRISPR treatment for a boy named KJ, who was born with genetic mutations in his liver cells that prevent him from breaking down proteins properly. As a result, ammonia builds up in his body, which can be toxic to the brain, potentially leading to developmental delays. Led by professor of medicine Dr. Kiran Musunuru at University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Rebecca Ahrens-Nicklas, director of the Gene Therapy for the Inherited Metabolic Disorders Frontier Program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the scientists designed a CRISPR gene therapy to specifically address one of KJ’s mutations. “This drug was designed and made for KJ, so in reality this drug will probably never be used again,” says Ahrens-Nicklas of the bespoke nature of the therapy. While the therapy was created for him, the team is hopeful that the process can be made more universal and applied to other genetic mutations, for which they can plug in the appropriate genetic change to correct a disease.

When you’re dealing with an immediate and serious health concern, your top priority is getting the most effective care as quickly as possible. But what’s the best place to find that care? Outside of obvious situations—like chest pain you think could be a heart attack—it can be confusing to know if you should get a ride to the emergency room or if you can head to your nearest urgent care. Here’s exactly when you should get emergency medical attention and when you can find what you need at an urgent care facility—or even at a virtual appointment. Advertisement When to go to the ER Emergency rooms are famous for their long wait times and expensive bills. But even if you’re motivated to avoid these inconveniences, it’s essential you go to the ER when it’s warranted. Go to the ER or call 911 anytime your symptoms could be life-threatening, according to UChicago Medicine. Experts say that if you or someone you are with is experiencing any of the following symptoms, you should go to an emergency department: Symptoms of a heart attack: chest pain, pain in the arm or jaw, shortness of breath Symptoms of a stroke: weakness on one side of the body, slurred speech, suddenly not being able to speak or see, weakness or drooping on one side of the body Significant trauma or injury, especially to the head or neck Severe lower abdominal pain Severe allergic reaction Serious burns Heavy bleeding Symptoms of sepsis: sudden confusion, high fever that does not get better with medicine Stopped breathing

Right now, it’s politically hot to spit out fluoride. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long railed against fluoride in public water supplies, claiming that it correlates to lower IQs in kids. (Research suggests that fluoride may be linked to lower IQ scores only at very high exposures.) Dozens of places in the U.S.—including Miami-Dade County, Fla., Peshtigo, Wis., and the entire state of Utah—have recently passed restrictions banning the fluoridation of public water supplies. Florida just announced plans to ban fluoride beginning July 1, 2025. Advertisement More states and localities may follow suit after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on May 13 that it is taking steps to remove ingestible fluoride supplements prescribed to children from the market. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also said in April that it’s studying the health risks of fluoride, and Kennedy has signaled that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will stop recommending water fluoridation. These concerns contrast with the views of most U.S. dentists and pediatricians, who advise that fluoride is safe in small doses and one of the few bright spots in the fight against cavities since its addition to water in 1945. About 1 in 4 kids have dental decay by kindergarten, with those at lower economic levels affected most. “I am concerned about the fluoride issue,” said Dr. Mike Simpson, a Republican congressman from Idaho, to Kennedy during a May 14 congressional hearing. “I've seen the benefits, having been a practicing dentist for 22 years.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services (HHS) Director under the Trump Administration, told Congress on Wednesday that he believes people “shouldn’t be taking medical advice from [him]”. The comments were made at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on May 14, as the committee reviewed the Trump Administration’s 2026 budget request, which was released on May 2. During the hearing, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan asked Kennedy whether, if he had a child now, he would vaccinate them for measles. Advertisement “Probably for measles,” Kennedy said before backtracking. “I don’t think people should be taking advice — medical advice — from me….I think if I answer that question directly, it will seem like I'm giving advice to other people, and I don't want to be doing that.” Kennedy has been known for his controversial stances on vaccines, raising questions about vaccine safety. Since being tapped to lead HHS, he has tried to distance himself from the anti-vaccine movement and recently backed vaccination as a preventive tool during a measles outbreak. He still maintains however, that vaccines should be left to parents’ discretion, and has continued to spread misinformation about the measles vaccine. “Okay, but that’s kind of your jurisdiction, because the CDC [Center for Disease Control] does give advice,” Pocan responded. The CDC provides guidance on disease prevention, the development of best health practices, and providing access to immunizations.

Health is multifaceted, a fact that was reflected in the industry-spanning community gathered Tuesday night at the TIME100 Health Impact Dinner honoring some of the most influential people leading this fast-moving field. The latest annual TIME100 Health list, which debuted in 2024, highlights scientists, doctors, advocates, educators, and other changemakers working to navigate a year unlike any other in global health, punctuated by conflict and upheavals, while gazing into an uncertain future. Advertisement TIME CEO Jessica Sibley kicked off dinner by announcing the launch of a new coverage initiative, TIME Longevity, which aims to capture the people, institutions, and innovations redefining what it means to live longer and age healthier. TIME senior correspondent Alice Park then led a panel discussion on the next era of cancer treatment and diagnosis. As the dinner wrapped up, four TIME100 Health honorees gave toasts about fighting to restore respect for science, making innovations in public health accessible to those who most need it, supporting the mental wellness of LGBTQ+ youths, and turning a personal near tragedy into nationwide impact.

When Shari Leid was a teenager heading off to college, she proudly opted for a vanity plate on her Mazda 323 hatchback that was a shortened version of one of her most-deployed words: “whatever.” Now, decades later, she has a different view of how dismissive it is to shut down a conversation with such a casually snide remark. It is, she’s found, the single word that can break even the strongest bonds—one she’s had to teach herself to stifle in the interest of maintaining healthy relationships. Advertisement The problem with ‘whatever’ “Whatever” is a "fighting word,” says Leid, a friendship expert who’s the author of books including The 50/50 Friendship Flow—and it’s an immature one at that. “People stop and notice it,” she says. “It’s in-your-face, and there’s something that feels demeaning to it.” Brushing off a conversation with “whatever” immediately escalates the tension in the conversation, whether you’re talking to a friend, family member, or the customer-service worker who won’t accept your return. Not only is it passive-aggressive, but it demonstrates indifference or a lack of respect. Plus, it doesn’t leave any room for continued discourse. “‘Whatever’ is such an easy way out—it doesn't continue the conversation,” Leid points out. “It’s almost like you’re saying ‘shut up.’ Where do you go with that conversation?”