European countries should not rush into social media bans for children, human rights adviser Michael O’Flaherty told POLITICO. The comments come as many EU countries push to restrict minors’ access to social media, citing mental health concerns. In France, the parliament’s upper house is this week debating restrictions that President Emmanuel Macron has said will be in place as soon as September. Such bans are neither “proportionate nor necessary,” said O’Flaherty, the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, the continent’s top human rights body, adding that there “are other ways to address the curse of abusive material online.” The debate on how to protect children from the harms of social media “goes straight to bans without looking at all the other options that could be in play,” he told POLITICO. Restricting access to social media presents “issues of human rights, because a child has a right to receive information just like anybody else.” O’Flaherty’s concerns come amid live discussions on the merits and effectiveness of bans in Europe. Australia became the first country in the world to ban minors under 16 from creating accounts on social media platforms like Instagram in late 2025, and Brazil moved forward with its own measures last week. Now France, Denmark, Spain and Greece are among the EU countries heading toward bans, albeit on different timelines. Proponents argue that age-related restrictions setting a minimum age for the most addictive social media platforms are vital to protect children’s physical and mental health. Critics say that bans are ineffective and are detrimental to privacy because they require users to verify themselves online. O’Flaherty argued that — while children’s rights to access information could be curtailed if that overall limited their risks — any restrictions need to be proportionate and necessary. That must follow a serious effort by the EU to tackle illegal and harmful content on social media, he said, which hasn’t happened yet. “We haven’t remotely tried hard enough yet to ensure effective oversight of the platforms.” The human rights chief praised the EU’s digital laws as world-leading, including the Digital Services Act, which seeks to protect kids from systemic risks on online platforms — but said it wasn’t being policed strongly enough. “We have a very piecemeal enforcement of the Digital Services Act and the other relevant rulebook right across Europe. It’s very much dependent on the goodwill and the capacity of the different governments to be serious about it,” he said. Governments have “an uneven record” in that regard, he said. The European Commission, in charge of enforcing the DSA on large social media platforms, is considering its own measures. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images EU countries must make sure they have exhausted all other solutions before heading for the extreme measures of bans, he said. “I don’t see much sign of that effort.” Still, Denmark, Spain and Greece are among the EU countries heading toward bans, although they are on vastly different timelines. The European Commission, in charge of enforcing the DSA on large social media platforms, is considering its own measures. Countries like Greece have called on the Commission to go forth with an EU-wide ban to avoid fragmentation across the bloc. President Ursula von der Leyen has convened a panel of experts to advise her on next steps, which is expected to give its results by the summer.

An employee at French nuclear fuel company Orano has died from meningitis, French health authorities said Friday, adding that there is seemingly “no link” with the ongoing outbreak in the U.K. The Normandy Regional Health Agency said it received a report of a case of invasive meningococcal disease in La Hague, Normandy, on Thursday, and that the death was announced on Friday. Authorities are currently identifying at-risk contacts, who will be offered antibiotics “as soon as possible.” The employee worked at Orano, the health authority said. “Around 50 potential contact cases have been identified and contacted by their managers in order to receive a specific preventive antibiotic treatment,” Orano told POLITICO. The patient died at Cherbourg hospital. Cherbourg is a key port for ferries to and from the U.K. The health authority said “no link can be established with the meningitis epidemic currently underway in the United Kingdom.” The U.K. is grappling with an ongoing outbreak of meningitis in the southeast county of Kent, linked to a local nightclub. As of Friday, 29 people have fallen ill and two people have died, the U.K. Health Security Agency said. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described the outbreak as “unprecedented.” Health officials have rolled out preventive antibiotics and vaccination to those who attended the nightclub between March 5-7, to close contacts of cases and to local university and school students. France reported one case to the U.K. last weekend in someone who had also visited the university then travelled to France. The French health ministry told POLITICO the patient was “stable,” that close contacts had been alerted and offered antibiotics, and that no further cases had been reported.

Biotechnology is central to modern medicine and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. From cancer and cardiovascular disease to rare conditions, it is driving transformative advances for patients across Europe and beyond . 1         Yet innovation in Europe is increasingly shaped by regulatory fragmentation, procedural complexity and uneven implementation across  m ember s tates. As scientific progress accelerates, policy frameworks must evolve in parallel, supporting the full lifecycle of innovation from research and clinical development to manufacturing and patient access.  The proposed EU Biotech Act seeks to address these challenges. By streamlining regulatory procedures, strengthening coordination  and supporting scale-up and manufacturing, it aims to reinforce Europe’s position in a highly competitive global biotechnology landscape .2       Its success, however, will depend less on ambition than on delivery. Consistent implementation, proportionate oversight and continued global openness will determine whether the  a ct translates into faster patient access, sustained investment and long-term resilience.  Q: Why is biotechnology increasingly seen as a strategic pillar for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth?  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen:  Biotechnology sits at the intersection of health, industrial policy and economic competitiveness. The sector is one of Europe’s strongest strategic assets and a leading contributor to  research and development  growth . 3    At the same time, Europe’s position is under increasing pressure. Over the past two decades, the EU has lost approximately 25  percent of its global share of pharmaceutical investment to other regions, such as the  United States  and China.   The choices made today will shape Europe’s long-term strength in the sector, influencing not only competitiveness and growth, but also how quickly patients can benefit from new treatments.  > Europe stands at a pivotal moment in biotechnology. Our life sciences legacy > is strong, but maintaining global competitiveness requires evolution .” 4   > >  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Q: What does the EU Biotech Act aim to do  and why is it considered an important step forward for patients and Europe’s innovation ecosystem?  Marrache: The EU Biotech Act represents a timely opportunity to better support biotechnology products from the laboratory to the market. By streamlining medicines’ pathways and improving conditions for scale-up and investment, it can help strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and accelerate patient access to breakthrough therapies. These measures will help anchor biotechnology as a strategic priority for Europe’s future  —  and one that can deliver earlier patient benefit  —  so long as we can make it work in practice.  Q: How does the EU Biotech Act address regulatory fragmentation, and where will effective delivery and coordination be most decisive? Marrache: Regulatory fragmentation has long challenged biotechnology development in Europe, particularly for multinational clinical trials and innovative products. The Biotech Act introduces faster, more coordinated trials, expanded regulatory sandboxes and new investment and industrial capacity instruments.   The proposed EU Health Biotechnology Support Network and a  u nion-level regulatory status repository would strengthen transparency and predictability. Together, these measures would support earlier regulatory dialogue, help de-risk development   and promote more consistent implementation across  m ember  s tates.   They also create an opportunity to address complexities surrounding combination products  —  spanning medicines, devices and diagnostics  —  where overlapping requirements and parallel assessments have added delays.5 This builds on related efforts, such as the COMBINE programme,6 which seeks to streamline the navigation of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation , 7 Clinical Trials Regulation8 and the Medical Device Regulation9 through a single, coordinated assessment process. Continued clarity and coordination will be essential to reduce duplication and accelerate development timelines .10 Q: What conditions will be most critical to support biotech scale-up, manufacturing  and long-term investment in Europe?  Marrache: Europe must strike the right balance between strategic autonomy and openness to global collaboration. Any new instruments under the Biotech Act mechanisms should remain open and supportive of all types of biotech investments, recogni z ing that biotech manufacturing operates through globally integrated and highly speciali z ed value chains.   Q: How can Europe ensure faster and more predictable pathways from scientific discovery to patient access, while maintaining high standards of safety and quality?   Marrache: Faster and more predictable patient access depends on strengthening end-to-end pathways across the lifecycle.  The Biotech Act will help ensure continuity of scientific and regulatory experti z e, from clinical development through post-authori z ation. It will also support stronger alignment with downstream processes, such as health technology assessments, which  are  critical to success.   Moreover, reducing unnecessary delays or duplication in approval processes can set clearer expectations, more predictable development timelines and earlier planning for scale-up.    Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Via Amgen. Finally, embedding a limited number of practical tools (procedural, digital or governance-based) and ensuring they are integrated within existing  European Medicines Agency and EU regulatory structures can help achieve faster patient access . 11 Q: What role can stronger regulatory coordination, data use and public - private collaboration play in strengthening Europe’s global position in biotechnology?  Marrache: To unlock biotechnology’s full potential, consistent implementation is essential. Fragmented approaches to secondary data use, divergent  m ember   state interpretations and uncertainty for data holders still limit access to high-quality datasets at scale. The Biotech Act introduces key building blocks to address this.   These include Biotechnology Data Quality Accelerators to improve interoperability, trusted testing environments for advanced innovation, and alignment with the EU AI Act ,12  European Health Data Space13 and wider EU data initiatives. It also foresees AI-specific provisions and clinical trial guidance to provide greater operational clarity.  Crucially, these structures must simplify rather than add further layers of complexity.   Addressing remaining barriers will reduce legal uncertainty for AI deployment, support innovation and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.  > These reforms will create a moderni z ed biotech ecosystem, healthier > societies, sustainable healthcare systems and faster patient access to the > latest breakthroughs in Europe .” 14 > > Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen.  Q: As technologies evolve and global competition intensifies, how can policymakers ensure the Biotech Act remains flexible and future-proof?  Marrache:  To remain future-proof, the Biotech Act must be designed to evolve alongside scientific progress, market dynamics and patient needs. Clear objectives, risk-based requirements, regular review mechanisms and timely updates to guidance will enhance regulatory agility without creating unnecessary rigidity or administrative burden.  Continuous stakeholder dialogue combined with horizon scanning will be essential to sustaining innovation, resilience and timely patient access over the long term. Preserving regulatory openness and international cooperation will be critical in avoiding fragmentation and maintaining Europe’s credibility as a global biotech hub.  Q: Looking ahead, what two or three priorities should policymakers focus on to ensure the EU Biotech Act delivers meaningful impact in practice?  Marrache: Looking ahead, policymakers should focus on three priorities for the Biotech Act:    First, implementation must deliver real regulatory efficiency, predictability and coordination in practice. Second, Europe must sustain an open and investment-friendly framework that reflects the global nature of biotechnology.  And third, policymakers should ensure a clear and coherent legal framework across the lifecycle of innovative medicines, providing certainty for the use of  artificial intelligence   —  as a key driver of innovation in health biotechnology.  In practical terms, the EU Biotech Act will be judged not by the number of new instruments it creates, but by whether it reduces complexity, increases predictability and shortens the path from scientific discovery to patient benefit. An open, innovation-friendly framework that is competitive at the global level will help sustain investment, strengthen resilient supply chains and deliver better outcomes for patients across Europe and beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/media/press-releases/2025/05/The_EU_Biotech_Act_Unlocking_Europes_Potential 2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation to establish measures to strengthen the Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en 3. EFPIA, The pharmaceutical sector: A catalyst to foster Europe’s competitiveness, February 2026. Retrieved from https://www.efpia.eu/media/zkhfr3kp/10-actions-for-competitiveness-growth-and-security.pdf 4. The Parliament, Investing in healthy societies by boosting biotech competitiveness, November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/investing-in-healthy-societies-by-boosting-biotech-competitiveness#_ftn4 5. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   6. European Commission, combine programme, June 2023. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/combine-programme_en  7. European Commission. Medical Devices – In Vitro Diagnostics, March 2026. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-vitro-diagnostics_en 8. European Commission, Clinical trials – Regulation EU No 536/2014, January 2022. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-regulation-eu-no-5362014_en 9. European Commission, Simpler and more effective rules for medical devices – Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the medical devices regulations, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations_en#mdr 10. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   11. AmCham, EU position on the Commission Proposal for an EU Biotech Act 12. European Commission, AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future, June 2024. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai 13. European Commission, European Health Data Space, March 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en 14. The Parliament, Why Europe needs a Biotech Act, October 2025. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/why-europe-needs-a-biotech-act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Amgen Inc * The ultimate controlling entity is Amgen Inc * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on the EU Biotech Act. More information here.

LONDON — A deadly outbreak of meningitis in the United Kingdom linked to a nightclub in England’s southeast has killed two people with new cases being reported daily. Health officials are rolling out preventive antibiotics to those who attended the nightclub earlier this month, to close contacts of cases and to local university students. The latter are also being offered a vaccine. But as U.K. health officials move to contain the outbreak, it has added to proliferating cases of meningitis across Europe — and has exposed patchy access to vaccines to prevent the disease. Since 2021 Europe has seen increasing rates of invasive meningococcal disease, which is caused by a bacterial infection. The majority of cases have been linked to the same “group B” family of bacteria that caused the outbreak in England.  POLITICO looked into how prepared EU countries are for a similar outbreak. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE UK? From March 13-18 some 27 cases of invasive meningococcal disease were identified in the southeast of England, the U.K. Health Security Agency said Thursday. Nine have been confirmed as Neisseria meningitidis group B.  At least 10 people who caught the illness had attended a nightclub in Canterbury from March 5-7. Most are students from the University of Kent in Canterbury or are upper-year students from local secondary schools.  The illnesses have been severe with rapid deterioration. Two young people have died: an 18-year-old high school student and a 21-year-old university student. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described the cases as “an unprecedented outbreak.” France reported one case to the U.K. in someone who had also visited the university then travelled to France, Streeting told parliament on Tuesday. “The patient has been hospitalized and is in stable condition,” a health ministry spokesperson told POLITICO, adding that close contacts had been alerted and offered antibiotics, and that no further cases had been reported. HOW IS THE UK RESPONDING? Health officials have set up four centers in and near Canterbury for students and those who attended the nightclub to receive preventive antibiotics. Family doctors in the region have been advised to offer treatment to anyone who visited the nightclub. “This is the main intervention that will help protect people and halt the spread of the outbreak,” said Trish Mannes from the U.K. Health Security Agency. In addition, “as a further precaution,” 5,000 university students are being contacted and offered a vaccine to protect against meningitis group B, Mannes said.  Nearby hospitals and schools have been told how to spot symptoms, how to prevent infection and respond.    A student receives an injection at the University of Kent campus in Canterbury, U.K. on March 19, 2026. | Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images HAVE CASES BEEN RISING ELSEWHERE? Since 2021, cases of invasive meningococcal disease in Europe have been rising. In 2023 there were 1,895 confirmed cases, including 200 deaths in the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Group B remains the major cause of the disease, accounting for 57 percent of cases with known type, and was the dominant group in all ages under 65 years. “Its notification rate has been increasing since 2021,” a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control report said. France, Germany and Spain accounted for 57 percent of all confirmed cases, while Belgium, the Netherlands and Lithuania reported the second highest notification rate. Group Y infections were the second-most reported (20 percent of cases with known serogroup) and the most reported in those over 65. Group W infections were the third-most reported overall (15 percent of cases with known serogroup). Around 20 percent of young people carry the MenB bacteria in their noses and throats; the disease happens when the bacteria enter the bloodstream and when a person’s immune system is low. It causes a high fever, headache, vomiting and drowsiness, and can lead to inflammation of the brain and sepsis. It has a mortality rate of around 10 percent. Those that survive are at risk of lifelong disability due to the amputations or brain damage caused by the infection. WHO CAN GET THE VACCINE? GlaxoSmithKline’s MenB vaccine Bexsero was approved in Europe (including the U.K.) in 2013 and was rolled out as routine vaccination in the U.K. to infants in 2015. Infants are most at risk due to their lack of immunity. There are over 100 different strains of MenB; the vaccine covers between 75 percent and 80 percent of them, said Adam Finn, professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Bristol. “The level of protection after 2 doses is very high and lasts for some years at least,” he added. Infections also arise in adolescents, but the U.K. hasn’t offered MenB vaccinations in older children since it was launched.  In Europe, 12 countries routinely offer the vaccine to infants for free —  the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Spain. Croatia and Poland offer it to children and adults with compromised immune systems. Austria recommends the vaccine in infants but doesn’t fund it. Meanwhile, 12 countries — Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden — don’t offer the vaccine at all. Seventeen EU countries offer vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W. British Health Secretary Wes Streeting arrives in Downing Street in London for a Cabinet meeting on Jan. 17, 2026. | Zeynep Demir/Anadolu via Getty Images WHY ISN’T VACCINATION UNIVERSAL?  Each EU country takes advice from their independent immunization committees, which recommend which vaccines to offer citizens. “National epidemiology — based on surveillance data — and cost effectiveness considerations determine these decisions,” Beate Kampmann, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and immunology and professor of global health, told POLITICO. That means vaccine schedules in EU countries “differ as a result.” “MenB meningitis is a rare disease and the vaccine is expensive,” Brendan Wren, professor of microbial pathogenesis at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said of the U.K. position. “Although given to young children who are the most vulnerable to MenB, it is not freely available to the whole population.”  In light of the ongoing outbreak, however, Streeting told parliament that the country’s vaccination committee was reviewing whether to expand eligibility for the MenB jab. In 2019, Belgium’s immunization experts decided not to offer the vaccine to infants or adolescents, citing the low incidence of the disease, the need to administer three shots, and the fact the vaccine “is not very cost-effective.” The Netherlands said in 2022 that its Health Council wasn’t recommending the MenB vaccine “due to the relatively small burden of disease, the side effects of the vaccine and need for several doses, as well as cost.” But the council is now reviewing its position again, with a decision expected in the next quarter, a ministry spokesperson told POLITICO. COULD THE EU BUY VACCINES? The EU can procure vaccines for groups of countries, with the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority acting as a negotiator with drugmakers in such cases.  This could be an option for vaccines like Bexsero, should there be interest. “The Netherlands had a positive experience with the EU role in the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines and is open to discussing a role for the EU in other joint procurement procedures,” the Dutch health ministry said. Meanwhile, the vaccine is available for private purchase in most EU countries, but supplies in the U.K. are limited.  The EU can procure vaccines for groups of countries. | Alicia Windzio/picture alliance via Getty Images “Pharmacies are being inundated by requests from concerned patients for MenB vaccination, which the vast majority of our members across the country have no stock currently available to fulfil,” said Olivier Picard, chair of the National Pharmacy Association. COULD THE OUTBREAK SPREAD TO EUROPE? That’s unlikely since it’s not as easily transmitted among people. “This outbreak is caused by a bacterial infection and by its nature it is a lot less infectious compared to Influenza, Measles or SARCOV-2,” said Bharat Pankhania, senior clinical lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School. “These bacterial infections require close contact and it is a heavy droplet aerosol spread, thus not very infectious and you need to be in close prolonged contact with a case, a family member, or a kissing contact,” he said, adding there is no need for restrictions on movement. In Belgium, the health ministry said it is convening its scientific risk-assessment group “to evaluate the situation for our citizens and country.” Meanwhile, ECDC issued a statement Wednesday evening saying the risk to the general population in Europe from the British outbreak was “very low.” “Outbreaks of meningitis caused by Neisseria meningitidis typically occur in small clusters around cases or in places where many people gather. Although some secondary cases can occur among close contacts of cases, the disease does not spread in the community like, for example, a respiratory virus,” the disease agency said. Claudia Chiappa contributed to this article. Update: This article has been updated with UKHSA data issued March 19.

LONDON — Scottish lawmakers on Tuesday evening rejected a bill allowing terminally ill adults to access assisted dying. Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) opposed Liberal Democrat Liam McArthur’s legislation which would have given terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live assistance to end their lives. The bill fell by 69 votes to 57, with Scottish Health Secretary Neil Gray abstaining. MSPs previously backed the initial principles of the bill and allowed it to progress through the parliament last May by 70 votes to 56. First Minister John Swinney, Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, Scottish Labour Leader Anas Sarwar and Scottish Tory Leader Russell Findlay all rejected the bill, although Findlay voted in favor last May. Former Scottish First Ministers Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon also opposed the bill. McArthur told reporters he was “devastated” by the result as the current system “has been failing dying Scots for too long.”  But he told ITV News the vote against appeared “inevitable” as “the closer you get to that final vote, the enormity, the significance of what MSPs will be asked to do weighs more and more heavily.” A dozen MSPs from the Conservatives, Labour and SNP switched sides between the two votes to reject the bill. As a matter of conscience, parliamentarians were given a free vote and did not have to follow a whip. It marks the third time the Scottish parliament has rejected assisted dying since 1999, though previous bills fell at the first hurdle by far higher margins. McArthur predicted the issue would return to Holyrood after the May election “for so long as dying Scots continue to suffer as a result of the lack of choice and safety afforded to them by the current law,” which prohibits assisted dying. The vote followed an evening of impassioned debate, with supporters and opponents offering emotional personal testimonies. Both sides praised McArthur’s handling of the bill and agreed on the need for improved palliative care. The Scottish government, which retained a neutral position on the bill, said it “remains committed to ensuring that everyone in Scotland who needs it can access well-coordinated, compassionate and high-quality palliative and end of life care.”

World Health Organization officials are preparing for a nuclear catastrophe if the U.S.-Israel war with Iran escalates further. U.N. staff are monitoring the fallout of U.S-Israeli attacks on Iran’s atomic sites and remain “vigilant” for any type of nuclear threat, Hanan Balkhy, WHO regional director for the eastern Mediterranean, told POLITICO. “The worst-case scenario is a nuclear incident, and that’s something that worries us the most,” Balkhy said. “As much as we prepare, there’s nothing that can prevent the harm that will come … the region’s way — and globally if this eventually happens — and the consequences are going to last for decades.” Staff are prepared for a nuclear incident in its “broader sense,” including an attack on a nuclear facility or the use of a weapon, Balkhy said. “We are thinking about it, and we’re just really hoping that it does not happen.” U.S. President Donald Trump has vowed to “eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime,” though he has provided no evidence that Tehran was developing a nuclear weapon. Last June, the U.S. in coordination with Israel targeted nuclear infrastructure throughout Iran. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed that attacks took place at its Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz sites. The U.S. and Israel have continued to target nuclear sites since they launched their new offensive on Feb. 28. U.S. President Donald Trump is seen during the his departure the White House en route Hebron, Kentucky on March 11, 2026, in Washington DC. | Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images Israel and the United Arab Emirates also have nuclear facilities within range of Iran’s missiles, though there are no reports of these being targeted. Israel is itself widely believed to have a significant arsenal of nuclear weapons. To date there have been no reported signs of radioactive contamination anywhere in the region. But if a nuclear incident did expose people to dangerous levels of radiation, it would risk causing significant immediate trauma to their lungs and skin, and heighten the danger of developing cancer and mental health problems, Balkhy explained. The 1986 nuclear accident at the Soviet nuclear plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine officially caused around 30 deaths in the first few months, and later contributed to a surge in thyroid cancers, numbering in the thousands, and to high anxiety among the local population over the following decades. “I think those who read the history of previous incidents, whether intentional or accidental, are very aware of what we’re talking about,” Balkhy said. An estimated 110,000 to 210,000 people died from the U.S. nuclear attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. As the war continues, some senior figures have begun to speculate on the use of nuclear warheads. David Sacks, Trump’s AI adviser, said he worried about “Israel escalating the war by contemplating using a nuclear weapon.” Trump rubbished the suggestion, telling reporters: “Israel wouldn’t do that.” The WHO is refreshing its staff on how to respond in the event of a nuclear incident, including providing advice to officials on the public health risks and what measures people should take to protect themselves.  Smoke rises after airstrikes in Tehran, Iran on March 13, 2026. | Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images Balkhy also warned there could be significant health impacts, such as respiratory illness, from the attacks on Iranian oil facilities earlier this month that have covered Tehran in smoke. ATTACKS ON HEALTH SYSTEMS Meanwhile, the WHO has continued to decry attacks on health infrastructure in the region. The WHO has so far recorded 46 attacks on health workers in Iran and Lebanon, with 38 killed, since the war began on Feb. 28. Israel killed 14 health workers in Lebanon in two strikes on March 13, including an attack on the Bourj Qalaouiyeh primary health care center in the south of the country. In a follow-up statement to POLITICO, Balkhy called the attacks “tragic and unacceptable,” adding that health workers must be protected under international law “at all times.” Health workers and United Nations officials have previously accused Israel of systematically destroying Gaza’s health system. Israel has denied that charge, typically stating the attacks are justified on military grounds or, such as in the case of a deadly double-tap strike on Nasser Hospital last year, a “tragic mishap.” By mid-2025, 94 percent of Gaza’s hospitals had been damaged or destroyed, according to the WHO. Kuwait reported on March 17 that two paramedics were injured when shrapnel from an Iranian attack fell on a medical center. A view of tents as Lebanese families who were forced to leave their homes due to Israeli attacks, took shelter in a school building in the Dahieh district of the capital Beirut, Lebanon, on March 15, 2026. | Houssam Shbaro/Anadolu via Getty Images Health ministries in Iran and Lebanon reported 1,444 and 886 civilian deaths, respectively, as of March 17. Lebanon says 107 children have died from the latest bombardment. The United Nations estimates that between 600,000 and 1 million Iranian households have been temporarily displaced, while there are 946,000 self-registered displaced individuals in Lebanon, according to figures provided to POLITICO by the WHO. The Israeli Ministry of Health does not include casualties in its daily updates on the war. As of March 8, the government said 13 people had been killed. The fragile health system in Lebanon, which was already under severe pressure before the latest attacks from Israel, is struggling to deal with the large numbers of displaced. “You’re talking about access to good food, clean water, the disruption of medical care provision, whether it’s childhood immunizations, whether it’s access to their medications, the dialysis patients, the cancer patients, it will have a huge toll on the people of Lebanon,” Balkhy said. An ambulance belonging to the Islamic Health Organisation seen outside Jabal Amel Hospital after an Israeli airstrike in Tyre, Lebanon on March 17, 2026. | Sally Hayden/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images The conflict is also exacerbating a Palestinian health crisis, with heavy restrictions on the amount of aid entering Gaza, Balkhy said. The WHO has reported critical shortages of medicines and medical supplies in Gaza, despite Israel saying there is enough aid entering the territory to meet humanitarian needs. The Palestinian Ministry of Health, meanwhile, says there are zero stocks of 46 percent of essential medicines. The scale of destruction in Gaza was so overwhelming, Balkhy said, that it would take “billions of dollars” and “decades to re-establish a dignified environment for these people to live in.”

Teresa Graham, © EFPIA European governments navigate an ever more competitive global landscape, stagnating productivity and competing demands on budgets. We have successfully faced and solved many challenges in the past, but this situation is different: the choices we make today will shape our health care systems and patient care, and these choices will dictate Europe’s economic performance and global relevance for decades to come. For those of us in the life sciences, these aren’t just macroeconomic trends — they are the pulse of a system that determines how quickly a breakthrough reaches a patient. It is a high-stakes environment where policies on health care and innovation carry urgent human and economic consequences. When a medicine has the power to treat or potentially cure, neither innovators nor policymakers want to drag their heels, because no person requiring health care can afford the luxury of delay. > The true economic burden of health care isn’t financing health innovation, but > the cost of failing to do so. Europe’s challenge is clear: we must better align our industrial strength in life science with public health goals, ensuring innovation reaches both patients and economies faster. The question is no longer what Europe wants to be — it is where Europe chooses to invest to remain a global player. Health as e conomic i nfrastructure Under the weight of mounting budget pressures, it is understandable that governments often view health primarily as a cost to be contained. However, this perspective is disconnected from modern economic reality. And let me be clear: the true economic burden of health care isn’t financing health innovation, but the cost of failing to do so. For years, Europe has already been paying the price of lost productivity: citizens forced out of the workforce too early and chronic diseases managed too late. For instance, cardiovascular diseases alone cost the E uropean U nion economy up to €282 billion annually. This creates a massive yet avoidable strain on national budgets, especially as pharmaceutical innovation is estimated to be responsible for up to two-thirds of life expectancy gains in high-income countries . 1 > Every medical breakthrough that enables a citizen to return to work or care > for their family is a direct investment in Europe’s economic strength. We must shift our mindset . H ealth is not merely a social good; it is economic infrastructure. Healthier societies are inherently more productive and resilient, and every medical breakthrough that enables a citizen to return to work or care for their family is a direct investment in Europe’s economic strength. Investing in innovation today is the only way to secure a competitive workforce and reduce long-term systemic costs. The c ompetitiveness t est: a s trategic a sset, n ot a l ine i tem Europe’s life sciences sector is one of the few remaining areas that retains genuine global competitiveness and strength, contributing more than €300 billion to annual output and supporting 2 million high-skilled jobs across m ember s tates . 2 It anchors Europe’s trade resilience, generating a trade surplus 66 percent higher than all other EU sectors combined . 3 But the warning signs are clear: while Europe still accounts for 20 percent of global pharmaceutical research and development , its share of global investment is shrinking as capital and talent migrate elsewhere . 4 Europe’s world-class science is being held back by fragmentation and regulatory inertia. > We must treat this sector as a pillar of our sovereignty and a strategic > asset, not merely a cost to be managed. If we want to lead the next wave of medical breakthroughs, we must move at the speed of global change. This requires a fundamental shift: simplifying clinical trial regulations, deploying AI-driven digital tools, incentivizing research through strong intellectual property frameworks and establishing a public-private dialogue on innovative pharmaceuticals. We need a clear action plan, not just more legislation, to translate our scientific leadership into tangible health outcomes.   We must treat this sector as a pillar of our sovereignty and a strategic asset, not merely a cost to be managed.  A  c onsequential  c hoice  Europe has to choose. Either we can continue to approach life science innovation as a budgetary threat, only to reali z e too late that we have weakened our competitiveness and delayed new treatments for patients. Or we can recogni z e innovation for what it is  —  an economic multiplier that strengthens our productivity, resilience  and global influence  —  and ensure that Europe remains a place where the next generation of medical breakthroughs is discovered, developed  and delivered to patients.  There is no middle ground. Europe must stop focus ing solely on the cost of innovation and start asking how much innovation it can afford to lose. In the global race for talent and capital, hesitation is a decision. The rest of the world is not waiting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. The value of health: Investing in Europe’s future [EPC 2026] 2. Economic and Societal Footprint of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Europe [VE / PwC 2024] 3. International trade of EU and non-EU countries since 2002 by SITC [Eurostat 2026] 4. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard [EC 2025] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to  EU pharmaceutical regulation and innovation policy. More information here.

VIENNA — Colombian President Gustavo Petro issued a stinging rebuke of U.S. foreign policy and urged President Donald Trump’s government to pursue dialogue with Latin America over military interventions. During an interview with POLITICO in Vienna this week, Petro said that Latin America is not a “land to be conquered,” after the Trump administration bombed alleged drug smugglers, toppled the Venezuelan president and menaced Cuba. These aggressive moves are part of a strategic shift from a White House looking to reassert U.S. dominance across the Western Hemisphere and push back foreign influence — an approach nicknamed the “Donroe Doctrine,” after the 1823 policy of U.S. President James Monroe. Petro, a leftist and former rebel, has emerged as one of the world’s most vocal critics of this U.S. foreign policy, periodically landing himself on Trump’s blacklist. The Colombian president avoided any direct barbs against Trump, instead citing their February meeting in the White House as an example of the intercontinental dialogue he wants to see. Prior to that meeting, Trump had called Petro a “sick man;” afterwards, he said Petro was “terrific.” During the conversation with POLITICO, which took place in the gilded front room of the Colombian ambassador’s Vienna residence, Petro reserved his bluntest criticism for U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and former Trump adviser and billionaire Elon Musk. Donald Trump meets with Gustavo Petro in the Oval Office in Washington on Feb. 3, 2026. | Colombian presidency press office/Anadolu via Getty Images Rubio championed “Western civilization” bound by “Christian faith” at the Munich Security Conference in February, identifying mass migration as a crisis destabilizing societies “all across the West.” Musk, meanwhile, has characterized “empathy” as Western civilization’s Achilles’ heel. Petro condemned what he saw as their promotion of a “white, Christian, Western civilization,” and warned against trying to revive “the age of the Crusades.” Such slogans belong to history, he said, and would generate an “enormous level of violence within each society.” He then went on to praise Europe’s diversity, which he described as an “asset” despite the potential for conflict: “I believe that understanding societies in their diversity does not mean nullifying European history or European history in America,” he said. Neither Rubio nor Musk responded to a request for comment in time for publication. SHIELD OF THE AMERICAS After decades of domestic battle against gangs trafficking illegal narcotics, Petro criticized Colombia’s exclusion from Trump’s recent anti-cartel coalition, the Shield of the Americas. “The 17 countries gathered are the least experienced in the fight against drugs in the Americas,” he said about the group’s Miami summit. “Some of them are deeply penetrated by the corruption of drug trafficking. All the countries of America are infiltrated because the effect of cash is very strong on any human being — but if anyone has experience in the fight against drugs, it is Colombia.” Colombia and its neighbors are rich in the coca plant, which places the region at the center of the global cocaine trade and decades of U.S. anti-drug policy. Trump’s war on drugs has involved striking alleged trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing more than 150 people since September 2025, according to the New York Times. Last September, Petro told the United Nations that Trump should be investigated for war crimes over the strikes, which he said targeted young people trying to escape poverty. Colombia and its neighbors are rich in the coca plant, which places the region at the center of the global cocaine trade and decades of U.S. anti-drug policy. | Joaquin Sarmiento/AFP via Getty Images Speaking to POLITICO after addressing U.N. drug officials, Petro detailed Colombia’s expertise in fighting narco gangs, noting that it “has built a network of 75 countries whose police intelligence agencies coordinate with each other, and that is why we seized 3,300 tons of cocaine during my administration — the highest figure ever. We have handed over 800 drug traffickers to the U.S., collected 78,000 weapons.” But, he said, in reference to the Shield of the Americas summit, “we weren’t invited. And you don’t go where you’re not invited.” CLIMATE NOT BOMBS Petro is constitutionally barred from seeking another term in May, and with his time in office running out, he issued a plea for governments to pivot to climate action “instead of thinking about bombs.” “We have reached a world where capitalism is showing its end,” said Petro, who joined far-left guerrilla group M-19 as a teenager and now leads the left-wing Historic Pact party. “Its demise is not peaceful. It seems to be mired in bombs, violence and something that I have studied in depth: the climate crisis on which I have built my political project. The climate crisis scientifically heralds the end of existence — if we do not change the way we produce and consume throughout the world,” he warned. The Colombian leader is eager to discuss climate at almost any opportunity. He told U.N. diplomats on Monday that the rise of the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl revealed something about a society facing the potential “extinction of humanity,” calling it the “drug of the climate crisis.” He also sees people’s reluctance to have children as part of a “culture of extinction” that pervades societies facing climate breakdown. “That decision is based on certain realities — namely, the well-founded belief that capital has reached its limit, and that its limit could be the end of the species of life,” Petro explained. He then added that Cuba, which is now facing the threat of U.S.-sponsored regime change, could be part of an intercontinental solution to the crisis — if only America and other countries were open to dialogue. “I believe that there are people in the U.S. government who think similarly: that instead of imposing an empire from which Cubans always liberate themselves, what is ultimately needed is to establish a dialogue between the Americas and include Cuba in the world of fiber optics and clean energy,” he said. He then pointed to Cuba’s Covid-19 vaccine and contributions to public health as examples of how it could help — were it open to the world. “If the United States engages in dialogue, and this means respect for the other, equity with the other, then we solve a very important part of the problem that afflicts humanity today,” Petro said. Arnau Busquets Guàrdia and Jakob Weizman contributed to this report.

Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen sind weltweit und damit in den meisten europäischen Ländern – auch Deutschland – seit Jahren die häufigste Todesursache bei Frauen.  Dennoch wird ihr Risiko oft unterschätzt. Ein Grund dafür: Frauenherzen senden häufig andere, „leisere“ Signale als die, die wir aus dem klassischen medizinischen Bild kennen. Viele Frauen erleben keine typischen Brustschmerzen mit Ausstrahlung in den linken Arm, sondern Symptome wie Rückenschmerzen, Übelkeit, Atemnot, Erschöpfung oder ein unspezifisches Druckgefühl. Das macht die Einordnung schwieriger und führt dazu, dass diese Warnzeichen im Alltag leicht „überhört“ werden. Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen äußern sich bei Frauen oft anders als bei Männern, was ihre Diagnose komplexer macht. Hinzu kommt, dass Frauen in kardiologischen Studien historisch unterrepräsentiert sind. Viele diagnostische Standards wurden lange auf Basis männlicher Daten entwickelt. Dabei unterscheidet sich der weibliche Körper stark hinsichtlich des Herz-Kreislauf-Systems: hormonelle Einflüsse, zusätzliche Risikofaktoren, Krankheitsbilder und Symptome folgen teilweise eigenen Mustern – und diese Unterschiede sind für Diagnostik und Therapie entscheidend. > Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen äußern sich bei Frauen oft anders als bei Männern, > was ihre Diagnose komplexer macht. Studien zeigen zudem, dass Frauen bei ähnlicher Symptomatik häufiger unzureichend diagnostiziert werden als Männer – selbst dann, wenn später ein Herzinfarkt folgt. Diese Versorgungslücke entsteht nicht nur durch unterschiedliche Symptomprofile, sondern auch durch Verzögerungen im Hilfesuchverhalten: Viele Frauen gehen später in die Notaufnahme, weil sie ihre Beschwerden nicht als herzbezogen erkennen, sie auf Stress zurückführen oder ihre Angehörigen nicht beunruhigen möchten. Das kostet Zeit – und Zeit kann im Falle eines Herzinfarkts ein kritischer Faktor sein. Daten aus der deutschen NAKO-Gesundheitsstudie zeigen, dass sozioökonomische Faktoren das kardiovaskuläre Risiko von Frauen stärker beeinflussen als das der Männer. Besonders deutlich wird dies beim Bildungsniveau: Frauen mit niedriger Bildung haben mehr als dreimal so hohe Chancen, innerhalb von 10 Jahren ein sehr hohes kardiovaskuläres Risiko zu entwickeln – deutlich stärker ausgeprägt als bei Männern im gleichen Bildungssegment. Diese Differenz zieht sich durch mehrere Risikofaktoren wie Bluthochdruck, Übergewicht oder ungünstige Cholesterinprofile. Für die Praxis kann das bedeuten: Auch soziale Faktoren können das Herzrisiko von Frauen zusätzlich verstärken, weshalb niedrigschwellige Aufklärung, verständliche Risikokommunikation- und leicht zugängliche Untersuchungsangebote eine besonders wichtige Rolle spielen. Umso wichtiger ist eine gezielte Aufklärung mit klaren, verständlichen Informationen zu spezifischen Warnzeichen. Community‑based Ansätze – niedrigschwellig und alltagsnah – haben sich hier als besonders wirksam erwiesen. Für medizinisches Fachpersonal können strukturierte Checklisten und regelmäßige Trainings in der Erstversorgung helfen, subtile Hinweise besser zu erkennen und geschlechterspezifische Unterschiede konsequent zu berücksichtigen. Zuhören bedeutet in diesem Zusammenhang: Beschwerden ernst nehmen, auch wenn sie „leise“ sind und nicht dem vertrauten klinischen Bild entsprechen. Moderne bildgebende Verfahren können eine zentrale Rolle spielen, da sie sowohl strukturelle Veränderungen der Koronararterien als auch funktionelle Störungen der Durchblutung des Herzmuskels erfassen können. Während funktionelle Verfahren Durchblutungsstörungen sichtbar machen, ermöglicht die koronare CT-Angiographie insbesondere die Visualisierung frühzeitiger Veränderungen und Risikokonstellationen der Herzkranzgefäße, die im EKG (Elektrokardiogramm) oder in Blutwerten häufig unauffällig bleiben. Gerade bei Frauen liefert sie wichtige Hinweise auf nicht-kalzifizierte Plaques und sogenannte nicht-obstruktive Formen der koronaren Herzkrankheit. Leitlinien betonen daher zunehmend diagnostische Wege, die Frauen und ihre spezifischen Muster stärker einbeziehen und damit frühere sowie präzisere Entscheidungen ermöglichen. > Frauenherzen warnen anders. Sie warnen „leise“. Wenn wir ihre Signale kennen, > ihnen zuhören, moderne Diagnostik gezielt einsetzen und die Therapie > personalisieren, können wir viel bewegen. Auch die interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit gewinnt an Bedeutung. Viele kardiovaskuläre Risiken stehen im Zusammenhang mit hormonell relevanten Lebensphasen wie Schwangerschaft oder Menopause. In diesen Situationen ist die interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Disziplinen Kardiologie, Gynäkologie und Endokrinologie besonders wichtig. Herzgesundheit bei Frauen erfordert ein bewusstes Hinsehen und ein besseres Verständnis für ihre eigenen Muster. Frauenherzen warnen anders. Sie warnen „leise“. Wenn wir ihre Signale kennen, ihnen zuhören, moderne Diagnostik gezielt einsetzen und die Therapie personalisieren, können wir viel bewegen: frühere Diagnosen, präzisere Entscheidungen und somit eine verbesserte Prognose. Aufmerksamkeit ist kein Detail. Sie ist der Anfang einer besseren Versorgung – und der Schlüssel zu mehr Gesundheit.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is “still catastrophic” and has seen only a “marginal” improvement since the ceasefire, with worse to come due to the Middle East war, senior World Health Organization officials told reporters Thursday. There are $6 million worth of medicines that can’t reach Gaza due to supply disruptions in the Middle East, Hanan Balkhy, WHO director for the Eastern Mediterranean region, said. The chaos “will take away, for sure, from the support needed for the people in Gaza,” she said. Israel closed border crossings in and out of Gaza after striking Iran last weekend, claiming the enclave had adequate humanitarian supplies and there would be “no impact on the humanitarian situation.” Israel said Tuesday it would reopen the crossing to allow for the “gradual entry of humanitarian aid,” reported Le Monde with AFP. Balkhy, however, said the volume of aid entering Gaza “was and is not enough,” while WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the improvement since the ceasefire was “actually marginal.” “We need 600 trucks to cross into Gaza every single day but currently it’s not more than between 100 and 150,” Tedros said, adding the border closures had interrupted “good progress” on the number of medical evacuations. “I would like to use this opportunity actually to ask Israel to allow us to take patients [from Gaza] to east Jerusalem and [the] West Bank,” Tedros said. Some of the trucks entering Gaza were “commercial” and didn’t really help people who couldn’t afford the supplies, he said. POLITICO contacted Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories for comment, but did not receive an immediate response.