The UK’s National Health Service has announced that it will test delivering vital chemotherapy drugs via drone to the Isle of Wight. The body has partnered with Apian, a drone technology startup founded by former NHS doctors and former Google employees. Test flights are due to begin shortly, and it’s hoped that the system will reduce journey times for the drugs, cut costs and enable cancer patients to receive treatment far more locally.

The Isle of Wight is an island two miles off the south coast of England with a population just under 150,000. Due to the short shelf-life of most chemotherapy drugs, medicines are either rushed onto the island or patients take the ferry to the mainland. This journey can take up to four hours, while a drone flight can run from Queen Alexandra Hospital to St. Mary’s Hospital in half an hour. Not long after and an additional pilot scheme will take place in Northumbria to see if it’s possible to deliver vital medical supplies at ultra-short notice.

It’s not the first time that drones have been used to deliver vital medicines faster than a conventional courier. Merck and drone company Volansi began testing the delivery of cold-chain medicines to patients in rural North Carolina. Similarly, drone technology has helped move blood supplies across Rwanda, deliver prescriptions to senior citizens in Florida and help with supply drops during COVID-19.

Similarly, the UK’s Royal Mail has tested using autonomous delivery drones to get packages to remote areas. That includes getting vital supplies to the islands of Scilly, Shetland, Orkney and the Hebrides. Much like the NHS trial, Royal Mail said that using drones would reduce carbon emissions and speed up delivery times, especially in far-flung regions where infrastructure costs are too excessive to even think about.

Vegan meal kit startup Daily Harvest has been hit with two lawsuits by customers alleging they needed gallbladder removals after eating one of the company's products, reportedCNN. Last month the company issued a voluntary recall of its “French Lentil + Leek Crumbles” dish following multiple claims of gastrointestinal and liver from consumers. The first lawsuit was filed by Carol Ann Ready, an Oklahoma woman who is suing the company in the federal court for the Southern District of New York. Ready purchased and ate lentil crumbles from Daily Harvest on two separate occasions in May, both of which both of which resulted in trips to the emergency room. The second of these was a four-day stay, which ended with Ready's physician recommending gallbladder removal. 

Attorneys for Ready are asking for a jury trial, alleging that damages for the case exceed what the court normally allows. “Plaintiff has sustained serious personal injuries; suffered, and will continue to suffer, significant pain and other physical discomfort; incurred, and will continue to incur, substantial medical expenses; have missed, and will likely miss in the future, work and time necessarily dedicated to advancement in her profession; and remains at risk for future health complications with damages far in excess of $75,000, the jurisdictional threshold of this court,” says the complaint, obtained by Food Safety News.

Earlier this week, an Oregon-based content creator who claimed he also consumed the lentils and subsequently had to have his gallbladder removed filed a personal injury lawsuit against Daily Harvest. In a video posted to Twitter on June 21, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, Luke Wesley Pearson, warned his followers not to eat the lentil crumbles.

Daily Harvest still hasn’t pinpointed what may have caused the adverse reactions. "All pathogen and toxicology results have come back negative so far, but we're continuing to do extensive testing so we can get to the bottom of this. Everyone who has been affected deserves an answer, and we are committed to making this right,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

Yesterday the FDA announced a formal investigation into the outbreak, in an effort to determine the cause. In a blog post, Daily Harvest said it received approximately 470 reports from customers who suffered adverse reactions after eating the product.

A Food and Drug Administration official said COVID-19 vaccine makers won't need to carry out fresh clinical trials to receive approval for booster shots they're updating for newer Omicron variants. Dr. Peter Marks, who runs the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, told Reuters the agency will use data from trials for vaccines that target BA.1 — the Omicron variant that caused a huge surge in infections last winter — as well as manufacturing data to assess the vaccines. Safety data and preclinical data from animal studies may also be used. 

This week, the FDA asked vaccine manufacturers to modify booster shots to target the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants in addition to the original strain of the virus. The agency hopes the updated boosters will be ready by the fall. "It's going to be really critical as we move into this fall where we've seen this evolution into BA.4/5, where we could see further evolution, to try to get as many people boosted as we can," Marks said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says BA.1 isn't circulating in the US anymore, but BA.4 and BA.5 now account for over 52 percent of COVID-19 infections in the country. Combined, they made up just 0.5 percent of cases in the US at the end of April.

Pfizer and Moderna this week released clinical trial data which suggests versions of their shots that target BA.1 offered a stronger immune response than the initial COVID-19 vaccines. Those boosters did not perform quite as well against BA.4 and BA.5. However, the data showed that the immune response was still robust.

The Food and Drug Administration has asked COVID-19 vaccine makers to update booster shots to tackle newer omicron variants that are on the rise. It says the manufacturers should add a spike protein component to shots to target the omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants in addition to the original strain.

An "overwhelming majority" of the FDA's advisory committee voted this week in favor of updating shots with an omicron component, in the hopes of starting to use those modified boosters in the fall. The advisory is only for booster shots and not primary inoculations.

Vaccine makers are essentially playing whack-a-mole with the various strains of COVID-19. Pfizer and Moderna have created versions of their vaccines that target BA.1, the omicron variant that caused a significant upswing in COVID-19 cases during the winter.

However, that strain isn't circulating in the US anymore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Earlier this week, the CDC said BA.4 and BA.5 now account for over 52 percent of COVID-19 infections in the US. That figure is expected to rise in the coming weeks.

As CNBC notes, Pfizer and Moderna released clinical trial data this week showing that the current omicron shots performed better against BA.1 than the original versions of their vaccines in terms of offering a stronger immune response. While the immune response against BA.4 and BA.5 was still said to be robust, the omicron inoculations were less effective against those strains. It's unclear how long it will take vaccine makers to develop shots that take aim at BA.4 and BA.5.

"Vaccine manufacturers have already reported data from clinical trials with modified vaccines containing an omicron BA.1 component and we have advised them that they should submit these data to the FDA for our evaluation prior to any potential authorization of a modified vaccine containing an omicron BA.4/5 component," the FDA said. "Manufacturers will also be asked to begin clinical trials with modified vaccines containing an omicron BA.4/5 component, as these data will be of use as the pandemic further evolves."

If you post about being able to mail abortion pills to those who need it on Facebook, don't be surprised if you get a warning — or even get your account restricted. A tipster told Motherboard that they were notified a minute after posting "I will mail abortion pills to any one of you" that their status update had been removed. When they tried to post about it again later, they were banned for it. Motherboard was able to replicate the scenario, and we were able to confirm it, as well. We tried posting "abortion pills can be mailed" on Facebook and were quickly notified that we violated the website's Community Standards.

Facebook

In the next slide explaining our infraction, Facebook said doesn't allow users to buy, sell or exchange things such as tobacco, marijuana, recreational drugs and non-medical drugs. To test it out, we posted "I'm selling cigarettes," "cigarettes can be mailed," "anti-depressants can be mailed" and "painkiller pills can be mailed." None of them got flagged. General posts such as "abortion is healthcare" didn't get flagged either. As for our post that did get flagged, we were asked if we would like to accept Facebook's enforcement action or not. After choosing to accept it, our post got removed but we didn't get banned. According to Motherboard, their account got restricted for 24 hours after making several posts that got flagged.

It's unclear when the website started removing posts about mailing out abortion pills and whether it only began after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court's decision made all types of abortion illegal in several states with trigger laws, but people in those states can still get abortion pills shipped to them from international groups like Aid Access. Facebook could be preventing that information from getting to some people who need it, though, especially since it flags posts with "mail" and "abortion pills" even for international users. We posted from outside the US and still got a warning. "Some items aren't regulated everywhere," the slide explaining our violation reads, "but because Facebook is borderless we have global standards that apply to everyone."

The New York Times also recently reported that Facebook's parent company, Meta, told employees not to discuss the Supreme Court ruling within the workplace. Moderators would reportedly swoop in and quickly remove posts about abortion in the company's internal Workplace platform. Meta did, however, tell employees that it would reimburse them for travel expenses if they need to access out-of-state healthcare and reproductive services "to the extent permitted by law."

The Food and Drug Administration has banned e-cigarette maker Juul from selling and distributing its products in the US. It ordered the company to remove its wares from the market or face enforcement actions. 

Reports earlier this week suggested that an FDA ban on Juul products was imminent. After a two-year review, the FDA rejected Juul's application to keep selling tobacco- and menthol-flavored pods as well as its vape pen.

The decision doesn't apply to Juul pens and pods that are already in the possession of the company's customers. However, it'll be difficult, if not impossible, to find those products in the near future.

In 2020, the FDA began a comprehensive review of all e-cigarette products sold in the US. It weighed up the potential benefits of vaping vs. cigarettes for adult smokers against the popularity of e-cigarettes among underage users. The agency has permitted other manufacturers to continue selling vape products, including NJOY and Vuse parent Reynolds American. To date, the agency has authorized 23 "electronic nicotine delivery systems" (to give vape pens their formal name).

In Juul's case, though, the FDA said the company's application "lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. In particular, some of the company’s study findings raised concerns due to insufficient and conflicting data – including regarding genotoxicity and potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the company’s proprietary e-liquid pods – that have not been adequately addressed and precluded the FDA from completing a full toxicological risk assessment of the products named in the company’s applications."

The agency went on to say that it doesn't have clinical information that suggests there is "an immediate hazard" linked to Juul's pen or pods. "However, the [marketing denial orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the Juul products," the FDA said. It noted that it's not possible to grasp the possible harms of using other pods in a Juul vape pen or the company's pods in third-party devices.

“The FDA is tasked with ensuring that tobacco products sold in this country meet the standard set by the law, but the responsibility to demonstrate that a product meets those standards ultimately falls on the shoulders of the company,” said Michele Mital, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “As with all manufacturers, Juul had the opportunity to provide evidence demonstrating that the marketing of their products meets these standards. However, the company did not provide that evidence and instead left us with significant questions. Without the data needed to determine relevant health risks, the FDA is issuing these marketing denial orders.”

Juul can appeal the decision or challenge it in court. Engadget has contacted the company for comment. 

The company became the leader in the US e-cigarette market in 2018. However, sales have dropped following a string of controversies. Juul slipped to second place behind Vuse in terms of US market share. The vast majority of the company's revenue comes from the US, The Wall Street Journal noted this week. 

Juul had been accused by federal agencies, state attorneys general and other officials of marketing its products to teens. The company agreed to pay eight-figure settlements related to lawsuits in North Carolina and Washington state, and faced suits in several other states. 

The company halted sales of mint- and fruit-flavored vape pods in 2019 before the FDA banned most flavored variants in early 2020. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 85 percent of young people who had used e-cigarettes said they used flavored varieties. However, vaping has become less popular among teens overall. In 2019, Juul revealed a new, connected version of its vape pen that can verify a user's identity in an attempt to prevent underage use. 

Early in the pandemic, scientists tried training dogs to detect COVID-19 infections in humans. The results were predictable. Man’s best friend proved adept at sniffing out the disease, but the question researchers kept asking themselves was how they would scale that approach. After all, training a dog is expensive, and taking care of one can be a handful.

Still, the idea of using animals to spot sick humans is a good one and one that a team of researchers from Michigan State University approached in a novel way. In a recent study published in the journal bioRXiv, they detailed a locust-based cancer screening system. Per MIT Technology Review, the tech involves surgically-altered locusts with electrodes implanted into the lobes of their brains by Professor Debajit Saha and his colleagues. Those electrodes were there to capture signals from each insect’s antennae, which they use to sense smells.

Additionally, the team grew three different types of cancerous human mouth cells – in addition to a separate set of healthy ones – and built a device for capturing the gases emitted by those tissues. They then used that device to give the insects a whiff of the gases. They found that the locusts' brains responded to each type of tissue differently and that they could correctly identify sick cells with only the recording of the gasses.

It’s hard to say if you’ll ever see your local clinic uses insects for cancer screenings. The study hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet, and it’s difficult to know if regulators like the Food and Drug Administration would ever approve such a procedure. People could also find the treatment of the locusts questionable. “The insect is dead in terms of its body function,” Saha told MIT Technology Review. “We are just keeping its brain alive.”

Saha and his team plan to continue work on the project. Their current system requires between six and 10 locust brains to function. He hopes new electrodes will allow his team to record more neurons, thereby making a single locust brain sufficient for an individual screening. He also wants to make the device holding the brain and antennae portable, which would allow the team to use the system outside of a lab.

University of Michigan, Saha et al.

A group of Democratic lawmakers led by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Elissa Slotkin is urging Google to "crack down on manipulative search results" that lead people seeking abortions to anti-abortion clinics. In a letter addressed to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, the lawmakers reference a study conducted by US nonprofit group Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The organization found that 1 in 10 Google search results for queries such as "abortion clinics near me" and "abortion pill" — specifically in states with trigger laws that would ban the procedure the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned — points to crisis pregnancy centers that oppose abortion instead.

"Directing women towards fake clinics that traffic in misinformation and don't provide comprehensive health services is dangerous to women's health and undermines the integrity of Google's search results," the lawmakers wrote. CCDH also found that 37 percent of results on Google Maps for the same search terms lead people to anti-abortion clinics. The lawmakers argue in the letter that Google should not be displaying those results for users searching for abortion and that if the company's search results must continue showing them, they should at least be properly labeled.

In addition, CCDH found that 28 percent of ads displayed at the top of Google search results are for crisis pregnancy centers. Google added a disclaimer for those ads, "albeit one that appears in small font and is easily missed," the lawmakers note, after getting flak for them a few years ago. "The prevalence of these misleading ads marks what appears to be a concerning reversal from Google’s pledge in 2014 to take down ads from crisis pregnancy centers that engage in overt deception of women seeking out abortion information online," the letter reads.

Warner, Slotkin and the letter's other signees are asking Google what it plans to do to limit the appearance of anti-abortion clinics when users are explicitly searching for abortion services. And, if Google chooses not to take action to prevent them from appearing in results, the group is asking whether Google would add user-friendly disclaimers clarifying whether the clinic is or isn't providing abortion services. You can read the whole letter below:

A Supreme Court draft obtained by Politico in May showed that SCOTUS justices have voted to reverse Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that protected the federal rights to abortion across the country. Senator Ron Wyden and 41 other Democratic lawmakers also previously asked Google to stop collecting and keeping users' location data. They said the information could be used against people who've had or are seeking abortions in states with trigger laws. 

Facebook is collecting data about people who visit the websites of pregnancy crisis centers, according to a report from Reveal. The findings raise questions about how that data could be misused, and Meta’s ability to enforce its advertising rules.

In an investigation conducted with The Markup, Reveal found that hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers were using the Meta Pixel on their websites. The Meta Pixel allows companies to keep tabs on who visits their websites so they can create targeted ads on Facebook. As the report notes, so-called crisis pregnancy centers typically aren't licensed medical establishments and are not bound by HIPAA and other privacy regulations. Instead, they are "mostly run by religiously aligned organizations whose mission is to persuade people to choose an option other than abortion." 

Under Meta’s rules, the Meta Pixel is supposed to filter out “sensitive” health data, like much of what Reveal found was being collected. “In many cases, the information was extremely sensitive – for example, whether a person was considering abortion or looking to get a pregnancy test or emergency contraceptives,” Reveal reports. In some cases, the social network also received data about specific appointments that were requested. The report also found that third-party anti-abortion marketing companies were able to gain access to data collected by the Meta Pixel, even though their websites had not been visited.

In a statement provided to Reveal, Meta said that “It is against our policies for websites and apps to send sensitive information about people through our Business Tools,” referring to the Meta Pixel. “Our system is designed to filter out potentially sensitive data it detects, and we work to educate advertisers on how to properly set up our Business Tools.”

The issue of online platforms collecting data from people seeking abortion services has taken on a new urgency in recent weeks following a leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Privacy advocates have warned that the information could be used to prosecute people seeking abortions in areas where it's been outlawed. Lawmakers have also raised concerns about the issue, calling on Apple, Google and other platforms to bar apps that collect data targeting people seeking abortion services.

Researchers have 3D-printed hearts using silicone and even a patient's own cells, but they haven't matched the full functionality of the real thing and aren't much good for repairing hearts. There's some progress on that front, however, as a team at Harvard's Wyss Institute has developed a technique for 3D-printing long cardiac macrofilaments that develop into muscle-like filaments which contract. The new method mimics the complex alignment of a heart's contracting elements (a difficult feat so far) while producing tissue thick enough to use in regenerative heart treatments.

The system is a refinement of Wyss' existing SWIFT (Sacrificial Writing in Functional Tissue) bioprinting technology. Their approach created a platform with 1,050 wells, each with two microscopic pillars. Scientists filled the wells with human-induced pluripotent stem cells (that is, young cells capable of developing into multiple forms) as well as a protein collagen and the cells used to form connective tissue. The combination forms a dense tissue that aligns along the axis linking the micropillars. The team then lifts the resulting organ building blocks off the pillars, uses that to create a bioprinting ink and uses the motion of the 3D printer head to further help with alignment.

This is just a small piece of the heart. While the technology produces a relatively high output, there's much more work to be done before a fully functional, 3D-printed organic heart is available.

The research group believes their work could still be useful long before reaching the whole-heart milestone. The 3D-printed filaments could be used to replace scars following heart attacks, or to create improved disease models. They might even patch holes in newborns with congenital heart defects, and would grow with those child patients. Simply put, a damaged heart might not be the permanent problem it tends to be today.