Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Dannell D. Boatman, Assistant Professor and Health Communication Researcher, West Virginia University

Scientists are making rapid progress toward a long-awaited goal that could help to reshape cancer care: mRNA cancer vaccines with the potential to significantly boost the immune system’s ability to fight and eliminate tumors.

Since the early 2000s, there have been over 120 promising clinical trials testing the use of mRNA vaccines to treat multiple cancer types, such as melanoma, brain, breast, lung and prostate cancer.

At the same time, misinformation about so-called turbo cancer began spreading widely on social media, with mainstream media outlets first reporting on it in late 2022. Turbo cancer refers to the false claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause unusually aggressive cancers.

As a researcher in health communication who monitors cancer-related conversations online, I have seen how quickly new misinformation can spread and the impact it can have on people’s health decisions. In the case of mRNA cancer vaccines, this false narrative could undermine public confidence in an important tool that may help prevent or treat cancer in the future.

Cancer research and mRNA vaccines

Most people likely first heard about mRNA technology through COVID-19 vaccines, but scientists have been studying it for decades.

How mRNA vaccines work is by delivering instructions that prompt the body’s cells to make specific proteins. This process teaches the immune system how to recognize and attack those proteins. In cancer research, scientists can design highly targeted vaccines that train the immune system to find tumor cells and more effectively kill them without harming healthy cells.

One example of this potential comes from studies on glioblastoma, an aggressive brain tumor with few effective treatments. Researchers have found that a personalized mRNA vaccine can rapidly activate people’s immune systems against this type of brain cancer and improve survival.

The body of evidence that mRNA vaccines can transform how researchers harness the immune system to treat cancer is growing. However, even the most promising medical advances can only improve health if people are willing to use them.

Rise of the ‘turbo cancer’ narrative

“Turbo cancer” is a term often used by anti-vaccine advocates who claim – without credible evidence – that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are causing unusually aggressive cancers.

This inaccurate narrative has trickled into the mainstream news. In September 2025, a controversial U.K. cardiologist claimed that the COVID-19 vaccine contributed to the royal family’s recent cancer diagnoses, spurring immediate backlash from the medical community. Although uncommon, some public figures and health professionals have claimed that the vaccines could cause cancer despite ample contradictory evidence, often by misinterpreting or misrepresenting studies.

Health misinformation can be described as false or misleading health-related claims shared with the public that are not supported by scientific evidence, are based on unverified personal stories or are opinions presented as facts. For example, while tracking discussions about the HPV vaccine across social media platforms, my team and I found that safety fears, mistrust of authority and conspiracy claims were widespread online.

Vaccine misinformation accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, causing what researchers call an infodemic: the rapid spread of both accurate and false health information during a public health crisis. The COVID-19 infodemic made it harder for people to find trustworthy guidance and shaped public attitudes toward vaccines.

“Turbo cancer” reflects many of the same patterns and narratives as the COVID-19 infodemic.

In a social listening study, which involves systematically monitoring online conversations about different topics, my team and I observed countless posts about turbo cancer beginning in July 2023 and continuing through early 2026. Many posts rely on emotionally compelling anecdotes, misinterpretations of animal studies, misuse of adverse events reporting and recycled myths that vaccines alter human DNA. Some posts also link rising cancer rates in younger adults to the COVID-19 vaccine. However, large population studies have found no increased cancer risk following vaccination.

None of these turbo cancer claims are supported by credible evidence. But on social media, repetition, personal stories and scientific-sounding language can make misinformation appear legitimate and help it spread quickly.

Cancer vaccine misinformation harms health

At first glance, fringe claims such as turbo cancer may seem easy to dismiss. But research shows that they can have real-world consequences, and cancer-related misinformation can be particularly consequential.

Inaccurate information about cancer treatment is common online, and researchers have shown that it influences patient decisions. When patients rely on unproven approaches instead of recommended therapies, their risk of death can increase substantially.

Clinicians are already seeing the effects of misinformation in routine care. Oncologists report having to address myths or misleading information that patients have encountered, though researchers do not yet know how common these conversations are across cancer care.

mRNA technology is entering a pivotal phase in its development. Scientific progress is accelerating, but public understanding has not kept pace. Repeated exposure to misleading claims can erode trust in mRNA technology over time, increasing the likelihood that some patients will decline mRNA therapies in the future.

If misleading narratives such as turbo cancer continue to spread, they could complicate the future rollout of mRNA vaccines and limit their lifesaving benefits.

Keeping communication in pace with science

Once misinformation takes hold of public understanding, changing its course can be difficult.

Research has consistently shown that proactive, transparent and persuasive communication can counter misinformation. It also shows that trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild.

Medical innovations can save lives, but only if communication keeps up. This means monitoring emerging misinformation trends on social media, addressing concerns early on, equipping clinicians to have effective patient conversations and designing public health messaging that builds public understanding of new medical technologies before they are widely introduced in the clinic.

Scientific innovation alone is not enough to improve health. Ensuring that the public can evaluate medical innovations like mRNA cancer vaccines based on evidence, rather than viral misinformation, is part of the scientific challenge.

The future of cancer care depends not just on scientific discovery, but on public understanding and trust.

Dannell D. Boatman receives funding from Merck, Sharp & Dohme LLC, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

– ref. Cancer vaccines could transform treatment and prevention – but misinformation about mRNA vaccines threatens their potential – https://theconversation.com/cancer-vaccines-could-transform-treatment-and-prevention-but-misinformation-about-mrna-vaccines-threatens-their-potential-276809

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Leanne Snyder, Assistant Professor of Exercise Science, Loyola University Chicago

Every March, millions of Americans fill out brackets and tune in to watch the NCAA college basketball tournaments known as March Madness. The men’s and women’s competitions unfold in parallel, each with their own brackets, champions, storylines and fan bases.

The separation reflects one of the most deeply embedded assumptions in sports: that women and men perform differently enough that they must compete apart.

The divide is so normal, it’s rarely explained: On average, men are faster, stronger and have more endurance. As a result, performance differences between men and women are often assumed to follow directly from these physical traits.

This notion shape how sports organizations structure competition, how coaches train athletes and how researchers study performance. Sex becomes a shortcut – a way to predict what athletes can do before they ever step onto the court.

As an exercise scientist who studies the physical demands of Paralympic sports, I wanted to know whether this assumption actually holds up.

My research on elite wheelchair basketball suggests it may not. I found that many of the differences widely attributed to physiological differences between women and men in sports are far less pronounced in wheelchair basketball players – and in most cases absent altogether.

It may seem that wheelchair sports are too different from nondisabled sports to compare. But in my view, they may instead reveal what sports look like when performance is measured by what athletes can do, rather than presumptions tied to their sex.

Testing different abilities

In most sports, presumptions about physical differences between the sexes appear early, often starting with elementary school physical education classes and youth teams.

Wheelchair basketball works differently. Although international competitions have separate women’s and men’s teams, athletes at the national level often train together, while women sometimes compete in men’s leagues and vice versa.

As part of my Ph.D. research, I examined how elite wheelchair basketball players move during competition by asking athletes from the Australian national men’s and women’s teams to wear movement sensors during five international-level games in 2022.

The sensors recorded how often players accelerated and decelerated, how frequently they changed direction, how fast they moved and how much distance they covered. Accelerations, decelerations and changes of direction are typically the most physically demanding movements in wheelchair basketball. To ensure fair comparisons, I adjusted all measures for playing time.

A consistent difference emerged. Players with less severe impairments – those with greater trunk control and stability – performed more high-intensity actions than players with more severe impairments. Female athletes with less severe impairments accelerated and decelerated more frequently and reached higher peak speeds, and male athletes showed the same pattern.

When I compared performance by sex, however, the differences were much less pronounced. Across most measures – including distance covered, average speed and high-intensity movements – female and male athletes performed similarly over the course of multiple games.

Performance beyond sex

If sex-based performance differences are so common in sports, why didn’t they appear in my research? The answer lies partly in how wheelchair basketball is organized.

To compete, athletes are assigned a classification based on how their impairment affects movement during play. These classifications range from 1.0 to 4.5, with lower numbers indicating more severe impairments. The system is designed to account for athletes with wide variations in physical disabilities, particularly differences in trunk control, balance and the ability to generate force and change direction in their game wheelchairs.

During games, teams must stay under a combined classification limit of 14 points for the five players on court. This means lineups are built around functional movement ability rather than sex, balancing players with different movement capacities within lineups so that no single team gains an unfair advantage.

With this in mind, it makes sense that classification, not sex, explained the differences I observed. In other words, wheelchair basketball is designed around physical variation in sports – not just between women and men, but across individuals with very different movement capacities and roles on the court. In this context, sex becomes one variable among many, rather than the primary basis for performance.

This pattern isn’t unique to wheelchair basketball. In wheelchair rugby, where women and men compete together on the same international teams, research has also found that game demands are shaped more by players’ classification and on-court roles than by sex.

Challenging sports science norms

My findings challenge a near-universal assumption in sports: that sex is the primary factor defining physical ability.

To be clear, there are contexts where sex-based comparisons matter. Differences in average muscle mass, body size and hormone profiles can influence performance in many sports, which is one reason competitions are typically separated into women’s and men’s divisions. Safety concerns are also frequently cited as a reason for maintaining separate competitions.

But when sex becomes the primary framework for understanding performance, it can obscure other important factors such as strength, body size, training history and access to coaching.

Research supports this idea. One study comparing athletes by both sex and strength found that many differences often attributed to sex were better explained by strength. Another review found little consistent evidence for sex-specific movement patterns in jumping and landing tasks, concluding that many reported differences are better explained by training exposure, motor skill or sociocultural factors than by sex alone.

Put simply, what is often labeled a sex difference may instead reflect unequal opportunities to develop physical capacity – much of which is trainable – rather than fixed, innate ability.

This perspective does not mean sex differences disappear, but it suggests that they may not always be the most informative way to understand performance. In some cases, focusing primarily on sex-based categories may even risk underselling what some young athletes are capable of.

Looking more closely at individual factors such as strength, agility, sport-specific skills and training exposure may give coaches a clearer picture of how athletes actually perform, rather than relying on long-standing presumptions about what girls and boys are capable of.

Leanne Snyder does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. My research on wheelchair basketball challenges one of the biggest assumptions about sex differences in sports – https://theconversation.com/my-research-on-wheelchair-basketball-challenges-one-of-the-biggest-assumptions-about-sex-differences-in-sports-261624

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Armin Sorooshian, Professor of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Arizona

The waves of U.S. and Israeli bomb strikes in Tehran and Beirut, and Iran’s missile and drone attacks on neighboring countries in response, are damaging more than buildings – they are sending toxic debris into the air in cities that are home to millions of people.

Military strikes have hit Iran’s missile stockpiles, nuclear facilities and oil refineries. When a strike set fire to an oil depot, it sent toxic black clouds billowing over Tehran and created oily rain that settled on buildings, cars and people. Residents described having headaches and difficulty breathing.

As a chemical and environmental engineer who studies the behavior and effects of airborne particles, I have been following the damage reports to understand the health risks residents are facing as toxic materials get into the air. The risks come from many sources, from heavy metals in the munitions themselves to the materials sent airborne by what they blow apart.

The invisible enemy during war: Air pollution

A disaster’s effects on air quality and public health depend in large part on what is being destroyed.

The terrorist attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, were localized, but they ejected massive bursts of pollutants into the air. These included gases such as volatile organic compounds and particulates – often called aerosols – containing a myriad of substances, such as dust, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls.

These pollutants can harm the lungs, making breathing difficult, and worsen cardiovascular problems, contributing to heart attacks, among other health damage. Tiny particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers, called PM2.5, are especially harmful because they can travel deep into the human respiratory system. But larger particles can also bring major airborne health risks.

When buildings are heavily damaged or collapse, the rubble often contains crushed concrete, gypsum and carcinogenic fibrous materials, such as asbestos. Even after the initial dust settles, wind and other disturbances, including efforts to find survivors or clear the rubble, can send those materials back into the air, putting more people at risk.

Many rescue and recovery workers who responded to the World Trade Center collapse in 2001 developed chronic respiratory problems. That’s also a risk for people searching for survivors in bombed buildings after military strikes and later when cleaning up the debris.

Fires create additional hazards as vehicles, buildings and the chemicals and other materials in them burn. The January 2025 fires in Los Angeles sent a stew of dangerous particles and gases into the lower atmosphere. Studies have shown how lead particles that fell to the ground were kicked back up into the air again where people could inhale them, along with other contaminants.

Munitions and oil facilities

Military attacks degrade air quality in other ways. The Gaza Strip, Iraq, Kuwait, Ukraine and most recently Iran and surrounding countries have all faced extensive damage from munitions, which contain toxic materials. Bombs and artillery often contain explosives and heavy metals, such as lead and mercury, which also contaminate soil, water and the environment.

When oil storage facilities and pipelines are damaged, they emit an especially harmful cocktail of pollutants. This chemical blend includes airborne soot particles, which darken the sky and contribute to the “black rain” observed in Iran.

During the Gulf War in 1991, downwind countries experienced similar polluted rain as Kuwait’s oil fields burned. The U.S. Department of Defense found that the smoke plumes contained sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, among other gases and soot.

The severe consequences of environmental pollution during wars prompted the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to publish a series of reports on Gulf War military veterans’ health, starting in the early 2000s. They documented illnesses soldiers suffered after being exposed to chemicals and heavy metals, including from oil well fires. They also examined scientific evidence on potential associations between pollution in war and reproductive and developmental effects in the veterans’ children.

Getting pollution out of the air

Nature, including rain and wind, can help reduce the pollution levels in the air.

Rain helps pull particles out of the air, depositing them back on the ground and surfaces. The raindrops form around particles and also collect more particles as they fall. However, rain has occurred only sporadically since the military attacks began in Iran.

And rain also contributes to runoff into streams, and pollutants can damage crops and contaminate waterways, soil and vegetation.

Wind can help blow pollutants out of an area, though at the expense of downwind sites.

Tehran has another challenge when it comes to pollution because of its terrain. The city is surrounded by mountains and prone to the effects of low-altitude temperature inversions in the wintertime, which concentrates pollutants even more by holding them closer to the ground. These attacks have been slightly outside the coldest periods for Tehran, allowing for deeper mixing of air, but the inversion still has an effect.

Can people in war zones protect their health?

People in war zones, where they are already under stress, can reduce their health risks by staying indoors in the days after military attacks, if possible. Keeping windows and doors closed can help reduce the amount of polluted ambient air that comes inside.

Indoor air quality is just as important as the air outside. For example, infants crawling on floors can be exposed to deposited particles with toxic materials that are tracked in or blow in under sills and doors, similar to wildfire smoke exposure.

As buildings continue to smolder and clearing debris sends harmful particles back into the air, the pollutants can also contaminate agriculture and waterways. People can try to avoid crops, water and seafood that were likely to have been affected by toxic airborne pollutants. However, getting information about risks gets harder in a time of war, and scarcity can leave people with few choices.

Armin Sorooshian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. In war-torn Iran, air pollution from burning oil depots and bombed buildings unleashes invisible health threats – https://theconversation.com/in-war-torn-iran-air-pollution-from-burning-oil-depots-and-bombed-buildings-unleashes-invisible-health-threats-278407