Category: Health

• A small study found that young non-smokers who eat more fruit, vegetables, and whole grains are more likely to develop lung cancer than the general population.
• The researchers speculate that this could be due to pesticides used on crops.
• The study is small in sample size and does not prove causation, so experts caution against reducing fruits and vegetable intake.

Younger nonsmokers who eat a higher quantity of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are more likely to develop lung cancer than the general population.

The research has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the authors speculate that their findings may be linked to pesticide use in crops.

“Our research shows that younger non-smokers who eat a higher quantity of healthy foods than the general population are more likely to develop lung cancer,” said Jorge Nieva, MD, a medical oncologist and lung cancer specialist with USC Norris and lead investigator of the study, in a statement.

“These counter-intuitive findings raise important questions about an unknown environmental risk factor for lung cancer related to otherwise beneficial food that needs to be addressed,” Nieva continued.

The researchers note that non-organic fruits, vegetables, and whole grains produced commercially typically have higher levels of pesticides than many processed foods, as well as meat and dairy.

Existing research that found agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticides have higher rates of lung cancer may support this theory.

Rates of lung cancer in the United States have been falling since the 1980s, along with rates of smoking. However, this has not been true among non-smokers ages 50 and younger, particularly females. Women in this group are now more likely than men to develop lung cancer.

“This trend is quite concerning. I think it is important for us to better understand through research why non-smokers are getting lung cancer,” Jimmy Johannes, MD, a pulmonologist and critical care medicine specialist at MemorialCare Long Beach Medical Center in Long Beach, California, who was not involved in the research, told Healthline.

In undertaking their study, the researchers surveyed 187 patients who received a diagnosis of lung cancer by the time they were 50.

The participants were asked to give details of their smoking history, diet, and demographics.

The majority of those studied reported that they had never smoked and also were diagnosed with a type of lung cancer that is biologically different than the type of lung cancer that is caused by smoking.

The researchers then used the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) to compare the diets of those surveyed with the general U.S. population. The Healthy Eating Index ranks Americans’ diets on a scale of 1-100.

Young, non-smoking patients who had lung cancer had an HEI score of 65 out of 100, compared with the average U.S. score of 57.

The researchers found that women scored higher than men.

On average, those with lung cancer ate more fruit, vegetables, and whole grains than the average U.S. population.

The study authors note that further research is needed to examine the link between pesticides and lung cancer among young people, especially in females.

The study authors say the next step in the research would be to confirm the association between pesticides and lung cancer in young people by measuring pesticide levels in blood and urine samples from lung cancer patients.

“This work represents a critical step toward identifying modifiable environmental factors that may contribute to lung cancer in young adults,” Nivea said in a statement. “Our hope is that these insights can guide both public health recommendations and future investigation into lung cancer prevention.”

Experts who spoke with Healthline caution that people shouldn’t reduce their intake of fruits and vegetables based on the results of the study, which is small in sample size and doesn’t prove causation.

“This study raises an important question, but doesn’t directly measure pesticide exposure in participants. Decades of evidence still show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables help lower cancer risk. People should not reduce their intake of plant foods based on this study alone,” Melissa Mroz-Planells, a registered dietitian nutritionist in private practice, told Healthline.

Pesticides are known to be carcinogenic, but experts say reducing or eliminating them from agricultural production would require a significant overhaul of food supply systems.

“The fact is, pesticides and herbicides are poison. They’re meant to kill pests and bugs. They were developed during wartime… and now are sprayed on almost everything and contaminate much of the food supply,” Dana Hunnes, PhD, a senior dietitian supervisor at UCLA Health, told Healthline. Hunnes wasn’t involved in the research.

“They should be included/discussed in dietary guidelines, which is more a downstream approach, but ought to be regulated or eliminated if we want a more comprehensive upstream/public health approach. However, that requires political will, money to change how farmers and ranchers grow food, and a complete overhaul of food systems.”

The reason for lung cancer rates among young non-smokers remains unknown, and the USC study offers just one theory yet to be confirmed.

George Chaux, MD, a board certified interventional pulmonologist and medical director of Interventional Pulmonology at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, CA, said it could be a number of factors contributing to the trend. Chaux wasn’t involved in the study.

“The rising trend of lung cancer amongst younger non-smoking individuals is concerning but remains relatively rare and is mostly tied to ethnicity, such as Asian descent. There is likely to be some strong genetic predisposition together with an environmental exposure driving this,” he told Healthline.

“Pesticides are known to be carcinogens, and there is a higher risk of lung cancer associated with heavy exposure, such as in agriculture workers, as cited in this study,” he said.

“This is why washing your fruits and vegetables before eating raw foods is very important. I would not conclude from this data nor recommend that people stay away from a healthy diet of fruits and vegetables, which has been conclusively shown to improve overall health, including risk of colon cancer and heart disease. I would also not necessarily recommend organic foods, which tend to be more expensive; the best approach is to wash your fruits and vegetables well before you eat them,” Chaux continued.

Amy Bragagnini is a clinical oncology dietitian at Trinity Health Lacks Cancer Center. She wasn’t involved in the study but said that, regardless of whether produce is organic, rinsing before eating is a good idea.

“When eating fresh produce, I first encourage my patients to thoroughly wash all produce that they consume, regardless of the produce being organic or conventional. Rinsing under cold water and using a light friction can reduce bacteria, dirt, chemicals, and pesticides,” she told Healthline.

“In addition, I encourage my patients to frequent local farmers’ markets if they have one close to them and to grow their own produce if they are able. There is nothing more satisfying than picking ingredients for your family’s salad right out of your backyard,” Bragagnini said.

• A recent study shows there may be a connection between those who are or have been married and reduced incidents of cancer.
• This adds to a growing body of research that links marriage to improved health outcomes.
• This is not to say that people must get or be married to have health and cancer benefits.

The concept of marriage is in flux in society. In fact, recent data show that marriage rates in the United States are actually falling.

A recent study published in the journal Cancer Research Communications suggests that being or having been married may be associated with reduced cancer risk. This means that, according to the data, many people may be missing out on the health benefits of marriage.

However, there are some who say that the societal concept of marriage being “better” than being single may skew data and the interpretations of it.

“People start from the assumption ‘Marriage: good. No marriage: bad’ and interpret things in ways that do not make sense in terms of actual data,” Joan DelFattore, PhD, professor emerita of English and legal studies at the University of Delaware, and someone who has written about cancer and marital status for academic journals and mass media, told CNN. Delfattore wasn’t involved in the study.

She added that this bias, which is embedded in medical training and research, often leads to conclusions that may be “over-simplified.”

The recent study showed, however, that statistically, people who had an “ever-married” status had a lower incident rate of cancer than those who had “never-married.” The researchers identified “ever-married” to include married, separated, divorced, or widowed individuals.

“This demonstrates that marriage confers not only known social benefits but also downstream physiological benefits, highlighting the unity between mind and body, and between social, mental, and physical health,” said Deborah Vinall, PsyD, LMFT, and Chief Psychological Officer with Recovered, who was not involved in the study.

“Loneliness is known to be fatal. This study makes that finding more concrete,” Vinall said.

While this study may show another potential health benefit of marriage, more research is needed.

The researchers found that among never-married males, cancer rates were 68% higher than those of males in the ever-married group. For never-married females, the rate was 85% higher than that of females in the ever-married group.

“With how heterogeneous both cancer and individual behaviors can be, this is a nuanced question but to generalize broadly, being married is known to decrease exposure to many of the risk factors associated with various malignancies,” said Ketan Thanki, MD, board certified colorectal surgeon who specializes in benign and malignant disease of the colon, rectum, and anus with the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Medical Center. Thanki wasn’t involved in the study.

The research team notes that these findings probably have multiple causes. For example, some cancers, such as ovarian and endometrial cancers, may be related to reproductive mechanisms. Individuals who have never given birth may be at a higher risk for these cancers.

The study also found that in older participants, the correlation between marriage and cancer risk seemed to strengthen. This may suggest that the effects of marriage accumulate over time.

It’s also possible that these outcomes are partly due to the way marriage can offer advantages in social support and healthcare.

The study researchers suggest that people who are married may be less likely to partake in behaviors that may be considered a risk, pointing to data that shows marriage was strongly associated with lower rates of lung and cervical cancer.

Both these cancers are linked to behaviors that may be considered a risk, like smoking, sexual activity, and drinking alcohol.

“Married people get screened more,” Thanki suggested. “This is especially true for men who are 20% more likely to get colonoscopies, for example, if married … Having a partner to help us manage and afford our lifestyle and food choices and remind us to get our health maintenance checkups seems to help prevent cancer,” said Thanki.

Vinall agreed, “Marriage partners are invested in each other’s long-term health and wellness. They may be more likely to encourage one another to engage in health-maintaining efforts such as eating well, exercising, and attending regular doctor’s visits, which can catch problems at a pre-cancerous stage.”

“It is interesting to note that while other surveys have found that marriage benefits men’s mental health more than women’s, the reduction in cancer risk identified in this study applies to both genders,” she told Healthline.

Some research suggests that single individuals going through cancer care may have worse outcomes than those who are married.

However, others, like DelFattore, argue that this may be due in part to stereotypes held by doctors.

More research is needed, and the study authors emphasize that it should focus on how to better support unmarried individuals.

It also provides doctors with an opportunity to counsel those without a support system at home. Unmarried people should be encouraged to build a strong support network.

“Social support really is the key factor, whether in a partner, friends, or family,” Thanki told Healthline.

“Taking that support out of the same home probably diminishes the effect slightly but still, having family and friends who encourage or inspire healthful behaviors, remind you to get your screening, and share meals and activities with you will not only keep you in a healthier and happier mental space but help keep you on top of the physical aspects of health that reduce cancer risk,” Thanki said.

Vindall added that it is important to remember “marriage decreases the odds of cancer but does not prevent it. If you are in a happy marriage and cancer still occurs, it is not an indictment of your marriage, love, or care for your spouse.”

• The FDA recently cleared another option for at-home self-collection for cervical cancer screening, further broadening access.
• The Onclarity kit from Waters Corporation is expected to be available in the coming months.
• The Teal Wand, another option for at-home HPV testing, is also available through a prescription.
• Experts say self-collection methods that test for HPV at home could reduce barriers to care and reduce cervical cancer diagnoses and related deaths.

Cervical cancer is widely considered the most preventable form of cancer with routine screening and early detection of human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes 90% of cases.

The Onclarity HPV Self-Collection Kit from Waters Corporation is a comprehensive screening tool that detects all high risk, cancer-causing HPV genotypes, the company said in a statement on April 8.

“Expanding access to screening is one of the most important steps we can take to prevent cervical cancer, and at-home HPV self-collection is a game-changer for making screening easier to complete,” said Jeff Andrews, MD, Vice President of Medical Affairs, Waters Advanced Diagnostics, Waters Corporation, in the statement.

“When more patients are able to get screened, whether at home or in the clinic, clinicians have better information to identify risks earlier and intervene sooner. That allows us to spend less time trying to reach patients who have fallen behind on screening and more time focusing on prevention, follow-up care, and treatment for those who need it,” Andrews continued.

Waters promises “broader nationwide access” to its self-collection kit, which will be available in the coming months and covered by private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare. Here’s what you need to know.

Around 60% of all cervical cancers occur in people who are under-screened or unscreened, due to various factors and barriers to care.

While vaccination against HPV is considered a first-line defense against cervical cancer, regular screening is still advised.

In January, the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), updated its cervical cancer screening guidelines to endorse self-swab at-home tests for HPV.

In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Teal Wand, the first at-home test for cervical cancer.

The new Onclarity screening kit is expected to further expand access to cervical cancer screening, potentially saving lives.

Self-collection methods are thought to reduce barriers to cervical cancer screening, such as lack of access to care or discomfort during traditional screening methods like pap smears.

Improving early detection and reducing cervical cancer-related deaths, particularly among Black and Hispanic women, who face disproportionately high risks of cervical cancer.

The Onclarity at-home self-collection kit will be available with a prescription and mailed to your home.

Samples are collected with a cervical swab at an individual’s convenience and mailed to a participating laboratory for analysis.

The samples are processed using advanced robotics to ensure reliable and accurate results, the company stated. It’s unclear what the turnaround time for results will be, but the Teal Wand typically takes about a week to process.

Diana Pearre, MD, board certified gynecologic oncologist at The Roy and Patricia Disney Family Cancer Center at Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, CA, said that overall, at-home self-collection methods are considered accurate.

Indeed, research has shown that samples collected via swab yield results as accurate as those collected by a clinician.

Test results are shared with a patient’s designated healthcare professional, who will help guide any follow-up and treatment decisions. Pearre said that depending on the findings, follow-up testing may be needed.

Pearre said that anyone interested in the Onclarity kit should ask their doctor for more information or visit the company’s website.

“The benefits of testing at home are convenience [and] lack of need for a pelvic exam, which can be uncomfortable for some individuals,” Pearre told Healthline.

• A man in Norway has achieved long-term HIV remission after a stem cell transplant, adding to a small but growing group of similar cases.
• Researchers say rare genetic factors, immune responses, and medication appear to work together to eliminate hidden HIV reservoirs.
• While not a practical cure for most people, these cases are helping scientists better understand the complexities of how to achieve HIV remission.

An adult man in Norway has been functionally cured of HIV following a stem cell transplant. He joins a small number of patients worldwide who have achieved similar outcomes.

Advancements in prevention and treatment, including PrEP and antiretroviral therapy (ART), have drastically improved outcomes and reduced the risk of HIV transmission.

In these cases, “functional cure” refers to long-term HIV remission without the need for ongoing treatment.

Only a small number of patients have achieved remission in this manner, but a new report adds to that growing body of evidence.

The “Oslo patient,” as he is known in the report, is a 63-year-old man who is documented as being functionally cured five years after undergoing HSCT to treat myelodysplastic syndrome.

Researchers affirmed his remission status by testing blood, gut, and bone marrow samples, all of which revealed no detectable viral reservoirs.

The case, which is documented in the journal nature microbiology, is the first in which HIV remission has resulted after a stem cell donation from a sibling.

Most, though not all, documented cases of HIV remission following a stem cell transplant have involved patients receiving stem cells from donors with the CCR5Δ32 mutation.

The CCR5Δ32 mutation confers resistance to the most common forms of HIV-1, the predominant HIV variant.

HIV uses CCR5 receptors on immune cells as an entry point to infect them. However, the CCR5Δ32 mutation prevents cells from expressing these receptors, effectively blocking the virus from entering and establishing infection.

The Oslo patient is no exception, having received a stem cell transplant from a sibling carrying the mutation. The presence of the mutation appears to play a key role in long-term remission, but it is not the only factor.

Steven Deeks, MD, a professor of medicine at UCSF in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, framed the development as a step forward in an evolving understanding of HIV remission. Deeks wasn’t involved in the study.

“There have now been 10 successful transplants. Each is unique, but they collectively show that there are multiple ways a bone marrow transplant can help cure HIV. We learn from each case,” he said.

Augusto Dulanto, MD, an assistant professor of Medicine in the Department of Medicine’s Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, who wasn’t involved in the research, called the case “a cause for optimism” in HIV research.

The Oslo patient is among just a few others from around the world, including London, Berlin, and New York, who have been functionally cured of HIV following a stem cell transplant in which the donor had the CCR5Δ32 mutation.

In all of those cases, patients received stem cell transplants to treat conditions other than HIV, and remission occurred as a consequence of that treatment.

HIV is adept at hiding in various cells throughout the body in a latent state, including in the gut, making it extremely difficult to eliminate and prone to rebound if treatment is stopped. However, HSCT appears to be one method through which HIV can be almost entirely eliminated.

HSCT involves destroying much of a patient’s existing bone marrow and immune system with chemotherapy or radiation, then infusing healthy donor stem cells to rebuild the immune system. This process can drastically reduce the number of cells harboring HIV, which is known as the viral reservoir.

Humans have two copies of the CCR5 gene; when both carry the CCR5Δ32 mutation, cells are highly resistant to HIV, whereas a single copy confers only partial resistance. When donor cells with this mutation are used in a transplant, they can confer that resistance to the recipient, increasing the likelihood of remission.

“In this case, the sibling had the mutation in both the mother’s and the father’s side, which means he was homozygous for that mutation. And that is the key characteristic that allows for most cases similar to this to be successful,” Dulanto said.

However, some patients have been functionally cured of HIV following a stem cell transplant, even when the donor does not carry the mutation, as in the case of a patient in Geneva, Switzerland.

In these cases, researchers increasingly look to a well-known complication of the procedure — graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) — as part of the explanation for remission. As the donor immune system takes hold, it can aggressively attack the patient’s remaining cells.

Under other circumstances, this is harmful. However, in patients with HIV, that immune response may also target and destroy cells harboring the latent virus, a phenomenon referred to as a “graft-versus-reservoir” effect.

The graft-versus-reservoir effect is theorized to be another piece of the puzzle in achieving HIV remission.

Yet there are other moving parts, said Marshall Glesby, MD, PhD, associate chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and director of the Cornell HIV Clinical Trials Unit at the Weill Cornell Medical College, told Healthline. Glesby wasn’t involved in the research.

“The graft-versus-reservoir effect and CCR5Δ32 mutation are kind of at the heart of things, but these patients are often receiving either prophylactic or therapeutic measures to counteract graft-versus-host disease, some of which are drugs that may have effects on the HIV reservoir,” he said.

Researchers note that ruxolitinib and vedolizumab, two drugs commonly used to treat GVHD, also appear to have anti-HIV properties that may contribute to the complete elimination of the virus. Simultaneously, antiretroviral therapy is also part of recovery, preventing any surviving virus from infecting the newly forming immune cells.

Taken together, this combination of treatments and immune-related factors may create the conditions in which HIV viral reservoirs are reduced or eliminated to the point where the virus can no longer rebound, potentially resulting in sustained remission, even in the absence of the protective CCR5Δ32 mutation.

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) has advanced to such a point that individuals with HIV are able to suppress the virus to undetectable levels, meaning there is “effectively no risk” of transmitting HIV.

The case of the Oslo patient is further proof that curing HIV is possible, though unlikely for most people. The authors write that using HSCT to cure HIV is “not a scalable strategy” owing to the serious and high risk nature of the procedure.

HSCT carries a significant risk of death, with a mortality rate of 10–20% within the first year after treatment.

Even if the procedure is successful, remission from cancer is not guaranteed. Cancer relapse is the leading cause of death following HSCT among those with HIV and the general population.

While ART requires lifelong use, it offers effective and generally well-tolerated viral suppression and is far more accessible than HSCT.

“The HIV treatments that we have nowadays are often just one pill per day, which is similar to how we treat hypertension. A procedure like HSCT has to be worthwhile, such as in cases where you may be able to simultaneously cure both HIV and a hematologic malignancy,” Dulanto said.

Still, Glesby points out that, despite its effectiveness, ART is still not a cure, and there are plenty of individuals with HIV who may still have difficulty taking daily medication. Furthermore, having HIV is still linked with a number of other conditions.

“Even when HIV is controlled, there’s still ongoing activation of the immune system and inflammation in many people that contributes to a number of comorbidities, including heart disease and age-related conditions,” he said.

That is to say, there is still a real drive among researchers to find a true cure. Despite the limitations of HSCT as a practical HIV treatment, the Oslo patient case advances our understanding of what it takes to achieve remission, helping to clarify the roles of genetics, immune response, and drug therapy on the path toward that goal.

“There’s still interest in achieving long-term control of HIV without having to take medications. There’s also research to try to improve tolerability and reduce the frequency of medication administration. All of these things are being done in parallel with the ultimate goal of helping people with HIV live longer and more productive lives,” Glesby said.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released a report that showed that drug-resistant Shigella is on the rise in the United States.
• Shigella bacteria cause the infection shigellosis.
• Extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Shigella strains are typically resistant to five commonly used antibiotics.
• Shigella can be easily transmitted, including through person-to-person contact and contaminated food.
• There are ways to prevent the spread of Shigella, including regular handwashing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a warning about a drug-resistant, diarrhea-causing “superbug” on the rise in the United States.

According to the CDC, Shigella causes around 450,000 infections in the United States each year.

“Antibiotic resistance is a global issue because antibiotics are overused and used inappropriately around the world,” said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

“In the U.S., clinicians and public health have worked hard to become good stewards of antibiotics, using them carefully,” he told Healthline.

The CDC analyzed 16,788 Shigella isolates that were collected through PulseNet between 2011 and 2023.

Around 3% (510) of these isolates were identified as XDR. The proportion of XDR isolates changed from 0% during 2011 to 2015 to 8.5% in 2023.

XDR Shigella is defined by its resistance to five commonly used antibiotics:

The CDC also noted that no oral antibiotics approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are currently available for XDR Shigella infections.

The CDC report indicates that the epidemiology of XDR Shigella has shifted.

Epidemiology refers to the patterns and distributions of health-related events, such as diseases.

Previously, outbreaks of Shigella in the U.S. were drug-susceptible strains and primarily affected children. In contrast, XDR Shigella cases have mostly occurred in adult males with an average age of 41.

The travel history data also showed that the majority of Shigella cases were acquired domestically.

Among individuals with available data, 76.2% reported no recent domestic travel, and 82.4% reported no recent international travel.

Shigella bacteria are easily spread. These bacteria appear in feces and fecal matter. Swallowing just a small amount of Shigella can make you sick.

Anything that may become contaminated with fecal matter can potentially spread Shigella.

• contaminated food or water
• contact with a person who is sick or has recently been sick with a Shigella infection
• sexual activity with someone who is sick

With the rising prevalence of XDR Shigella strains, the CDC noted in its report that stronger surveillance, routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and timely reporting of shigellosis are needed. Shigellosis is a nationally notifiable disease.

The CDC also called for targeted prevention methods to limit further spread of XDR Shigella infections.

Robert Glatter, MD, an attending physician in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/ Northwell, said that “treatment options for XDR Shigella are extremely limited.”

Schaffner agreed. “Antibiotic-resistant Shigella bacteria are a concern because they leave us with no antibiotics to treat the more serious infections, requiring us to rely on supportive therapy to help patients get over their illness,” he said.

Glatter said that most cases resolve with supportive treatments, such as oral rehydration and electrolyte replacement, continued feeding or resumption of a usual diet after rehydration, and zinc supplementation, especially for malnourished individuals.

“For severe infections requiring antibiotics, physicians may use carbapenems given intravenously, which are the most reliable option for severe XDR infections but require hospitalization,” Glatter said.

“Treatment decisions should be guided by antimicrobial susceptibility testing when available, and physicians must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of antibiotic therapy given the limited options,” he added.

Award-winning actress Lucy Liu will always remember the year 1991. She was 22 years old and found a lump on her breast that led to unnecessary surgery; the lump turned out to be noncancerous.

“I learned a lot about myself, and I think that was the beginning of advocating for myself, with my health and everything else,” she told Healthline. “I think it was a real moment to, I guess, empower myself and recognize the weakness of…not asking questions…and relying solely on the doctor, and also not getting a second opinion.”

“And so, I really didn’t do anything except go in, then go and schedule a surgery,” she said. “I have a lot more curiosity for my health now than I did then.”

Seeking out a second opinion is always critical when it comes to health, said Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, part of the University of Miami Health System.

“Cancer is a serious diagnosis, and it can sometimes be quite complicated to diagnose,” he told Healthline.

“We found that major misdiagnoses occurred 20% of the time, and even more frighteningly, 10% of patients received the wrong treatment for the wrong diagnosis,” Sekeres said. “You owe it to yourself to seek a second opinion on both your diagnosis and the right treatment for that cancer.”

“Knowing that one out of three people are going to be diagnosed with cancer [during their lifetime], that should be initiative enough for us to advocate for ourselves…and motivate ourselves to get an annual checkup,” she said.

Data from 1975 to 2020 estimated that over 1.3 million cancer deaths in the U.S. were averted due to screening programs. The breakdown included:

• Mammograms reduce breast cancer deaths by 260,000 women
• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing reduces prostate cancer deaths by 200,000 men
• Pap smear testing reduces cervical cancer deaths by 160,000 women
• Colonoscopies or other screening tests reduce colorectal cancer deaths by 740,000 people

“A screening test identifies cancer in an individual who does not yet have symptoms from the cancer, before you or your doctor even know it’s there,” said Sekeres.

He said screening tests have become more accurate and less invasive, and that doctors have become better at recommending when to undergo screening tests.

Mammograms, Pap smears, colonoscopies, and regular skin checks are important aspects of maintaining your health and preventing more serious consequences of cancer, he added.

“PSA testing for prostate cancer should involve a conversation between you and your doctor about the risks and benefits, and screening for lung cancer should be undertaken by high risk groups, such as current smokers aged 50 to 80 years,” Sekeres said.

When it comes to screening and your health in general, Liu said, don’t be afraid to ask your doctor questions and drop prefacing your questions with: “This is a stupid question.”

“I try to shut that down because I really think that you don’t want to be in a situation where it’s too late,” she said. “And I know people who have been in that situation, and I’ve lost people who have been in that situation.”

If you think your questions are embarrassing, she said to keep in mind that it’s impossible to be an expert in everything and to allow yourself the grace to know when you don’t know something.

“It’s asking a professional or professionals who have…specialized in this particular field what their thoughts are and what their opinions are and then…pooling that together with all the other information that you receive so that you can make the right choice moving forward for yourself,” said Liu.

Over the years, Liu said she learned that keeping to a strict health regimen isn’t realistic.

“[Because] you expect yesterday or today or tomorrow…to be the same and I think that’s difficult, because the weather changes…events change,” Liu said. “I think that it’s better to just be as present as possible…because if you expect it to be a certain thing every single day, you’re probably going to get disappointed, right?”

Parenthood has reinforced this notion for her. Being a mom to her son, Rockwell, has also pushed her to lead by example in preventive health.

“[Share with your child,] ‘I’m going to go and get my checkup,’” she said. “Don’t make it something that’s scary.”

She hopes that sharing her personal journey publicly will reduce some of the fear around screenings and empower others to take control of their health.

“I don’t often talk about my personal life…and for me to do that…it has to make a difference for someone else,” said Liu. “I often feel like advocacy starts with a personal story, and sometimes you have to reveal something about yourself in order for action to happen, and I’m okay with that.”

• A new study finds no evidence that fluoridated drinking water affects children’s IQ or the cognitive abilities of older adults.
• Experts say fluoride in drinking water helps prevent tooth decay and cavities.
• They add that a person’s dental health directly affects their overall health.

Fluoride in drinking water does not affect children’s IQ or decrease cognitive abilities in older adults, according to a new, large-scale study.

“We find no evidence that [community water fluoridation] is negatively associated with adolescent IQ or adult cognitive functioning,” the study authors wrote.

The findings are in contrast to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s announcement in April that he would require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to revise its long-standing recommendation that fluoride be added to drinking water.

They also contradict previous research, including a January study, that has suggested a possible link between fluoride and children’s IQ levels. Researchers noted that the studies were conducted in China and other countries with higher fluoride concentrations than permitted in the United States.

Scott Tomar, DMD, a spokesperson for the American Dental Association, said this research provides important information for the public at a critical time. Tomar wasn’t involved in the study.

“Despite misinformation that is out there, the best available evidence indicates that community water fluoridation has no effect on IQ, cognition, or other measures of neurodevelopment,” said Tomar, who is also a professor and associate dean for Prevention and Public Sciences at the College of Dentistry at the University of Illinois Chicago.

Danelle Fisher, MD, a pediatrician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, CA, said the findings confirm previous research on fluoridated water. Fisher wasn’t involved in the study.

“They reassure us that the use of fluoride in proper amounts does not have any definitive effects on IQ,” she told Healthline. “It makes a good case for having fluoride in our drinking water.”

The new study was led by Rob Warren, PhD, a sociologist and population health expert at the University of Minnesota.

Warren used data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, which has followed more than 10,000 people in that state since they graduated from high school in 1957. Participants took IQ tests at age 16, then had cognitive testing done at ages 53, 64, 72, and 80.

The original purpose of the Wisconsin study wasn’t focused on fluoride so there was no data available on urine or blood tests that would have measured exact levels of fluoride. Warren’s team based their estimates on exposure from records of when community water fluoridation began in certain areas.

The new findings follow a November 2025 study led by Warren that found no link between community water fluoridation in early life and brain function in people at age 60.

Experts note that fluoridation at appropriate levels doesn’t appear to cause any negative health effects.

“At the levels of fluoride that we use for community water fluoridation in the United States and other countries, there are no adverse health effects,” Tomar told Healthline.

Graham Tse, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of MemorialCare Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital in Long Beach, CA, agreed that the low levels of fluoride in U.S. drinking water pose no threat. Tse wasn’t involved in the study.

“There is no evidence of any health impacts,” Tse told Healthline.

He added that fluoride, like vitamins or other substances, can pose some issues if people are exposed to high levels. “That’s the case with many, many things,” Tse said.

The health benefits of fluoride in drinking water were first studied in 1909 in Colorado.

In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first state to add fluoride to its municipal water in an effort to help prevent tooth decay. Initial studies reported that tooth decay among Grand Rapids schoolchildren born after 1945 had declined by 60%.

In 1962, the U.S. Public Health Service recommended fluoridation in drinking water.

The CDC states that the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water to prevent cavities is 0.7 milligrams (mg) per liter (L). That amounts to 3 drops in a 55-gallon barrel. The legal limit for drinking water in the United States is 4 mg/L.

Today, more than 70% of people in the United States on public water systems receive fluoridated water. That represents more than 200 million Americans.

However, that number is shrinking. Two states — Utah and Florida — have enacted bans on fluoride in drinking water. Several other states, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma, have pending legislation to limit fluoride.

Fluoride, a chemical found in nature as well as in toothpaste and drinking water, works by inhibiting the growth of bacteria that cause cavities, strengthening the hard outer enamel of teeth, reversing the damage caused by cavities, and supporting new bone formation.

Excessive fluoride intake, however, may cause fluorosis, a condition that can result in white spots or brown stains on teeth.

Experts say the benefits of fluoridated water are numerous and widespread.

“We have extremely consistent evidence that water fluoridation helps to prevent tooth decay and reduces its severity,” said Tomar. “We also have very consistent evidence that community water fluoridation saves money for families, communities, and state governments by reducing dental costs and missed days of work or school due to dental problems.”

“The primary danger of stopping fluoridation is that the levels of tooth decay, and its related treatment costs will increase,” he added. “The effects show up first – and most pronounced – among the youngest children in the community but ultimately affects everyone.”

Among other issues, gum disease can affect blood sugar levels in people with diabetes and increase the risk of heart disease and respiratory infections.

In addition, poor dental health can also lead to the development of diabetes and other chronic diseases later in life.

Poor dental health can also affect people with chronic kidney disease.

Fisher said that cavities can lead to abscesses and infections, which can affect any part of the body.

“Cavities aren’t just little holes in your teeth,” she told Healthline. “Infections can spread and cause a wide variety of problems.”

“Oral health isn’t limited to the mouth,” Tse noted. “It’s connected to overall health.”

CDC officials say there are a number of ways you can promote good oral health. Among their suggestions:

• Avoid foods and drinks with added sugars.
• Drink fluoridated water and use fluoridated toothpaste.
• Brush your teeth at least twice a day and floss regularly.
• Visit the dentist at least once a year.

Fisher agreed with these recommendations and added a few more suggestions for parents.

She said adults should set a good example for children on regular brushing and flossing. She adds that parents should avoid giving children too many drinks and foods with added sugars.

Fisher said babies should never fall asleep while drinking juice or soda from a bottle. That allows sugar to coat their tiny teeth. She added that gummy products can also stick to teeth and should be used sparingly.

Tse agreed that good dental habits are important for children, as their teeth are still growing. He said that if everyone had access to quality dental care and adhered to healthy dental habits every day, then perhaps fluoridated water wouldn’t be necessary.

“Maybe we wouldn’t need fluoridated drinking water under those circumstances, but that’s not the reality,” he said. “Fluoridation is a cheap, effective way to promote good dental care.”