BRUSSELS — The world is rapidly closing in on the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming limit that serves as a threshold for ever more dangerous climate change, European scientists have warned.  Average global temperatures are now around 1.4C higher than during the pre-industrial era, according to data released Wednesday by the European Union’s Copernicus planetary observation service. The scientists also found that 2025 was the third-hottest year on record. If this warming trend continues, temperatures will breach the 1.5C limit set out in the Paris Agreement before the end of this decade. In the 2015 landmark climate accord, governments pledged to limit global warming to “well below” 2C and ideally to 1.5C.  The threats from climate change, such as more intense heat waves and rising sea levels, increase with every tenth of a degree of warming. Scientists also warn that passing 1.5C risks triggering so-called tipping points, from rainforest diebacks to ocean circulation collapse, that bring about irreversible and extreme climatic changes.  In theory, the world could return to 1.5C after crossing it by using technology to remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a scenario known as “overshoot.” This technology, however, is not yet available at the scale required. “With the 1.5C in the terms of the Paris Agreement around the corner, now we are effectively entering a phase where it will be about managing that overshoot,” Carlo Buontempo, director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, told reporters at a press conference. “It’s basically inevitable that we will pass that threshold, and it’s up to us to decide how we want to deal with the enhanced and increased higher risk that we will face as a consequence of this,” he said. The longer and greater the overshoot, the bigger the risk, he added. The hottest year — and the only one so far to exceed the 1.5C threshold — remains 2024 with 1.6C. However, the Paris Agreement targets refer to long-term trends rather than those lasting a few years, and Buontempo said three different Copernicus models, including five-year averages and 30-year linear trends, showed warming has now reached around 1.4C.  Copernicus data shows that 2025 was the third-warmest year on record at 1.47C above pre-industrial levels, just marginally cooler than 2023. That’s despite El Niño, a naturally occurring climate pattern that tends to bring hotter temperatures on top of the human-induced warming, ending in mid-2024 and a cooling La Niña phase emerging late last year. “The last three years in particular have been extremely warm compared to earlier years,” said Samantha Burgess, deputy director at Copernicus. Taken together, she noted, the three-year period exceeded 1.5C, something that had not occurred before.  “The primary reason for these record temperatures is the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, dominated by the burning of fossil fuels,” Burgess said. “As greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the air, temperatures continue to rise, including in the ocean; sea levels continue to rise, and glaciers, sea ice and ice sheets continue to melt.”  For the European continent, 2025 also marked the third-warmest year on record, the data shows. Hot and windy conditions contributed to record wildfires, resulting in Europe’s worst fire-related emissions since monitoring began 23 years ago. Half the world experienced an above-average number of days causing strong heat stress, meaning temperatures that feel like 32C or more. Burgess added that some regions — including most of Australia, parts of Northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula — saw more days with extreme heat stress, when perceived temperatures reach dangerous levels above 46C. “The summers we are facing now are very different to the summers that our parents experienced, very different to the summers that our grandparents experienced,” Burgess said. “Children today will be exposed to more heat hazards and more climate hazards than perhaps we were or our parents were.” The polar regions saw significantly higher temperatures in 2025, with the Antarctic experiencing its hottest year and the Arctic its second-warmest year on record.  Accordingly, the expanse of polar sea ice was below average throughout the year, and in February 2025 briefly hit a record low since monitoring began in the 1970s. The shrinking of the ice caps accelerates global warming by reducing the amount of sunlight reflected back into space.  European science officials also expressed concern about the Trump administration’s climate science cuts and erasure of datasets.  “Data and observations are obviously central to our efforts to confront climate change … and these challenges don’t know any borders,” said Florian Pappenberger, director of the European Centre For Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which oversees Copernicus. “Therefore, it is of course concerning that we have an issue in terms of data.”  Hanne Cokelaere contributed to this report.

Europeans’ world-leading drinking habits are putting their health at risk, but governments are failing to use higher taxes to help curb consumption, warned the World Health Organization. Beer has become more affordable in 11 EU countries since 2022, and less affordable in six, the WHO report revealed Tuesday. There was a similar but even more dramatic trend for spirits, which became more affordable in 17 EU countries and less affordable in two. And for wine, 14 EU countries do not tax it at all, including big producers Italy and Spain, the report found. The EU includes seven of the 10 countries with the highest per-capita alcohol consumption globally, with Romania, Latvia and Czechia among the biggest drinkers. Alcohol is a major driver of cancer, with risk scaling alongside higher consumption. It’s also linked to a wide range of illnesses including cardiovascular disease and depression, all of which are adding pressure to stretched health systems. The WHO said governments should target alcohol consumption to protect people from its ill effects. Increasing the cost of booze through taxes is one of the most effective measures governments can take, the WHO said. Yet, some EU countries have minimal or no taxes on certain types of alcohol. The fact that more than half of EU countries don’t tax wine at all is “unusual” by international standards, WHO economist Anne-Marie Perucic said. She pointed out that the more affordable alcohol is, the more people consume. “Excluding a product is not common. It’s always for political reasons, socio-economic reasons [like] trying to protect the local industry. Clearly, it doesn’t make sense from a health perspective,” Perucic told POLITICO. Those 14 countries span the EU’s northern and central regions, such as Germany, Austria and Bulgaria. “More affordable alcohol drives violence, injuries and disease,” said Etienne Krug, director of the WHO’s department of health determinants, promotion and prevention. “While industry profits, the public often carries the health consequences and society the economic costs.” The EU has touted its plans to protect its wine industry from threats including declining consumption and climate change. EU institutions agreed a package of measures to prop up the sector in December. Meanwhile, the European Commission recently backed down from proposing an EU-wide tax on alcopops; the sweet, pre-mixed alcoholic drinks that taste like sodas, as part of its Safe Hearts plan.  In a separate report, the WHO reported that sugary drinks have also become more affordable in 13 EU countries since 2022, data published in a separate WHO report found. A diet high in sugar is linked to obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease and certain cancers.

The German government rejected claims by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Berlin prosecuted doctors and patients for refusing Covid-19 vaccinations or mask mandates. “The statements made by the U.S. Secretary of Health are completely unfounded, factually incorrect, and must be rejected,” German Health Minister Nina Warken said in a statement late Saturday. “I can happily explain this to him personally,” she said. “At no time during the coronavirus pandemic was there any obligation for doctors to carry out vaccines against Covid-19,” Warken added. “Anyone who did not wish to offer vaccines for medical, ethical or personal reasons were not criminally liable and did not have to fear penalties,” she said. Warken added that “criminal prosecution took place only in cases of fraud and forgery of documents, such as the issuing of false vaccine certificates” or exemption certificates for masks.  “Doctors [in Germany] decide independently and autonomously on the treatment of patients,” the minister stressed, adding that “patients are also free to decide which treatment they wish to receive.” Kennedy said in a video post on Saturday that he had written to Warken after receiving reports that Germany was restricting “people’s abilities to act on their own convictions” in medical decisions. He claimed that “more than a thousand German physicians and thousands of their patients” faced prosecution for issuing exemptions from mask-wearing or Covid-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic. Kennedy did not provide specific examples or identify the reports he cited, but he said Germany was “targeting physicians who put their patients first” and was “punishing citizens for making their own medical choices.” He accused Berlin of undermining the doctor–patient relationship and replacing it with “a dangerous system that makes physicians enforcers of state policies.” Former German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach also pushed back on the claims, telling Kennedy on X to “take care of health problems in his own country.”

People who stop taking weight-loss drugs regain body mass four times faster than those who lost their excess pounds through diet and exercise, according to an analysis of the latest studies. The additional benefits from taking weight-loss drugs, such as improvements in cholesterol and blood pressure, were also reversed when patients quit the medications, the study found. The research, published in the British Medical Journal on Thursday, adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests life-long treatment of obesity is needed to maintain control of the condition. But the high cost of the latest drugs — as well as their side effects — present barriers to long-term use. “We know that obesity is a chronic relapsing condition. We know that when treatment stops, weight is regained. And so, some kind of treatment needs to be continued. What [that] treatment should be, I don’t know,” co-author Susan Jebb, professor of diet and population health at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, told journalists. Rates of obesity and overweight are growing rapidly on the continent, with around 51 percent of people in the EU aged 16 years or over being overweight in 2022. Obesity significantly increases the risk of chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease and cancers, and health systems are struggling to cope. Researchers analyzed weight gain from 37 trials of multiple weight-loss drugs, including older medications and the newer GLP-1s. The latest drugs, including Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro, saw the greatest weight loss and the fastest weight regain when treatment stopped. Compared with another analysis of behavioral weight management programs supporting low energy diets and exercise, weight regain was faster after ending medication than after ending behavioral programs. THE LONG-TERM DILEMMA The newer weight-loss drugs have seen a boom in uptake across Europe and America, despite their high prices. Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro soared in popularity after demonstrating roughly 15 percent weight loss in trials, and were pounced on by celebrities and influencers. However, around half of people who take these drugs will stop them after one year. Side effects such as nausea and vomiting, costs or dissatisfaction with weight loss as it plateaus are driving decisions to halt treatment, lead author Sam West, a postdoctoral researcher also at the Nuffield department at the University of Oxford, told journalists during the briefing. Most people in the U.K. — around 90 percent — pay privately for their weight-loss medication, Jebb said. But those who access it through the National Health Service are subject to a two-year cap on access to the drugs, known as GLP-1s. Similar limits apply in other EU countries. Dimitris Koutoukidis, associate professor in diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, suggested the U.K. may not be getting the value for money it envisioned with these weight-loss drugs. The model used to assess whether Lilly and Novo’s medicines were cost-effective assumed people would regain their lost weight after two years, he told journalists — but their study shows weight is regained at around 1.5 years. “It is really hard to treat obesity and keep the weight off long-term,” Jebb said. “That should make us put even more effort into preventing weight gain in the first place. And if we could transform our food environment to make it easier for people to manage their weight it would stop them gaining weight in the first place and help people — after a successful weight loss attempt — to keep it off.” “These treatments are not a whole solution,” she added.

Faced with an ageing population and rising chronic disease rates, Europe wants to make its citizens healthier. It also needs to keep its most powerful industries happy. In the basket of health policies that EU lawmakers rushed to get across the line before Christmas, industry was the big winner: The pharmaceutical, food and drink sectors walked away with a set of major policy wins — and (potentially) healthier profits. While the pharma industry previously feared losing some of its monopoly rights on new drugs, the Commission this month offered it an extra year of patent protection for novel biotech drugs — among the most expensive treatments in the world. The food and drink sectors, meanwhile, successfully pushed back against proposals to tax ultra-processed foods and alcopops, for now. On Dec. 16 the Commission published its Biotech Act and Safe Hearts Plan, which landed just days after a long-awaited update of the pharmaceutical legislation. Taken together, they seek to incentivize industries to innovate and do business in Europe, improve access to medicines, and tackle the burden of cardiovascular disease. The pharma industry broadly celebrated the biotech proposal. The Biotech Act “reflects priorities we’ve intensively advocated to keep Europe globally competitive in life sciences,” Ognjenka Manojlovic, head of policy at European pharmaceutical company Sanofi, told POLITICO. That includes accelerating clinical trials, boosting intellectual property, and strengthening financing for Europe’s biotech ecosystem, Manojlovic said. The pharmaceutical sector had pushed for longer monopoly rights in the pharma legislation. In the end they were kept at the current standard eight years — instead of being cut by two years as the European Commission had initially proposed. For Europe’s public health insurers, who pay for drugs, the decisions taken to maintain and then extend market protections for medicines are hard to square. “We are puzzled by the Commission’s intentions,” said Yannis Natsis, director of the European Social Insurance Platform, a network of Europe’s social insurance organizations, warning that taxpayers will have to pick up the bill. Meanwhile, health campaigners are also unhappy at the Commission’s “missed opportunity” to tackle obesity and heart disease with junk food taxes — as proposed in an earlier draft of the Safe Hearts Plan. Samuele Tonello, at consumer organization BEUC, said the Safe Hearts Plan “lacks teeth” to better protect consumers from unhealthy foods, and flagged the “urgency of [cardiovascular diseases].”  A MAN ON A MISSION Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has made no secret of his support for industry, and has championed the Commission’s competitiveness mantra since taking office in late 2024. Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has made no secret of his support for industry, and has championed the Commission’s competitiveness mantra since taking office in late 2024. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images The standout feature of his end-of-year bonanza was the 12-month patent extension in the Biotech Act I — legislation that was split in two late in the day, allowing Várhelyi to meet his end-of-year deadline for the pharma component. The proposal came just a week after the Commission, countries and MEPs clinched a deal to reform Europe’s pharmaceutical laws, in which IP rights were among the last issues to be settled. Updates to the pharma laws were a legacy of the last Commission, whereas the Biotech Act became something of a personal mission for Várhelyi. He repeatedly stressed that there was “no time to lose” in delivering a targeted policy aimed at revitalizing Europe’s flagging biotech industry, which risks being overtaken by competition from China and the U.S. Few commissioners are more vocal than Várhelyi about the premium they place on the competitiveness of European industry.  Industry insiders had heard whispers of his plans to expand IP incentives for the biotech sector, even if Council representatives were dismayed not to have been informed in advance — especially with the ink barely dry on the Pharma Package. That’s not to say pharma is happy with its lot. Industry lobby group the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) tempered its praise of the Biotech Act, lamenting that the extra year of monopoly rights would only apply to a “limited subset of products.”  The extra year of protection is tied to the Commission’s efforts to locate more pharma research and manufacturing in Europe. It would apply only to new products, tested and at least partially made in Europe.  But the generics sector, which makes cheaper, off-patent drugs to compete with branded medicines, sees the Biotech Act as a further sweetening of what is already one of the world’s most generous IP systems. Lobby group Medicines for Europe claims each year of delayed competition for the top three biologic drugs would cost countries €7.7 billion. Longer IP “will have a dramatic impact on healthcare budgets and delayed patients’ access to essential medicines,” said Adrian van den Hoven, head of the lobby. These kinds of estimates would normally be included in an impact assessment published alongside the proposal, but in its haste to get the Biotech Act out the Commission didn’t do one. POLITICO asked the Commission for an estimate of what the extra year of patent protection would cost. A Commission spokesperson would not give a figure but said they had used the impact assessment for the pharma legislation as a reference. “It is also important to stress that the number of products eligible for an additional year of SPC will be limited to only those that are truly innovative and tested and manufactured in the EU. The approach is deliberately targeted to incentivise genuinely innovative therapies that deliver a clear added value for patients and support European innovation,” the spokesperson said. LUCKY ESCAPE FOR UPFS The big food and drink sectors are on shakier ground with Várhelyi. The commissioner has repeatedly made known his distaste for ultra-processed food, and an early leaked version of the Safe Hearts Plan included new taxes on unhealthy highly processed foods and alcopops. But the final proposal showed the Commission had undertaken a significant climbdown. Concrete targets to tax unhealthy food and drink in 2026 were gone, replaced with a much woollier commitment to “work towards” such a levy. Alcopops were excluded altogether.  Industry lobby FoodDrinkEurope took a far more measured tone on the final plan than its explosive reactions to the earlier leaks, but that may well ramp up again if and when health tax proposals emerge. The text suggests the soft drinks industry may be the Commission’s first target if it does decide to pursue new levies, while UPFs remain in Várhelyi’s sights. “In the next couple of years, we will need to tackle the issue of ultra-processed food much more,” he told MEPs in December. For now, though, the plan seems to have let industry off easy. Health NGOs saw it as a disappointment, given its lack of hard-hitting policies to reduce consumption of UPFs and other unhealthy products. While the pharma legislation is all wrapped up, the Biotech Act still needs to win the approval of EU countries and the European Parliament. For the food and pharma sectors, the proposals set out this month are confirmation they have allies in the Berlaymont.

President Donald Trump has told his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to consider aligning the U.S. vaccination schedule with those in Europe, where many countries recommend fewer vaccines. Kennedy has taken up the charge with gusto and is considering advising parents to follow Denmark’s childhood schedule rather than America’s. Many who specialize in vaccination and public health say that would be a mistake. While wealthy European countries do health care comparatively well, they say, there are lots of reasons Americans are recommended more shots than Europeans, ranging from different levels of access to health care to different levels of disease. “If [Kennedy] would like to get us universal health care, then maybe we can have a conversation about having the schedule adjusted,” Demetre Daskalakis, who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases before resigning in protest in August, told POLITICO. Children, especially those who live in poor and rural areas, would be at greater risk for severe disease and death if the U.S. were to drop shots from its schedule, Daskalakis said. Denmark, for instance, advises immunizing against only 10 of the 18 diseases American children were historically recommended immunizations against. It excludes shots for potentially serious infections, including hepatitis A and B, meningitis and respiratory syncytial virus. Under Kennedy, the government has already changed its hepatitis B vaccine recommendations for newborns this year, even as critics warned the new advice could lead to more chronic infections, liver problems and cancer. The health department points out that the new guidance on hepatitis B — that mothers who test negative for the virus may skip giving their newborn a shot in the hospital — now align more closely with most countries in Europe. Public health experts and others critical of the move say slimmer European vaccine schedules are a cost-saving measure and a privilege afforded to healthier societies, not a tactic to protect kids from vaccine injuries. Kennedy’s interest in modeling the U.S. vaccine schedule after Europe, they point out, is underpinned by his belief that some childhood vaccines are unsafe and that American kids get too many too young. Kennedy’s safety concerns don’t align with the rationale underpinning the approach in Europe, where the consensus is that childhood vaccines are safe. Wealthy European countries in many cases eschew vaccines based on a risk-benefit calculus that doesn’t hold in America. European kids often don’t get certain shots because it would prevent a very small number of cases — like hepatitis B — or because the disease is rarely serious for them, such as Covid-19 and chickenpox. But since the U.S. doesn’t have universal access to care, vaccinating provides more return on investment, experts say. “We just have a tradition to wait a little bit” before adding vaccines to government programs, said Johanna Rubin, a pediatrician and vaccine expert for Sweden’s health agency. Swedish children are advised to get vaccines for 11 diseases before they turn 18. Rubin cited the need to verify the shots’ efficacy and the high cost of new vaccines as reasons Sweden moves slowly to add to its schedule. “It has to go through the health economical model,” she said. VACCINE SAFETY’S NOT THE ISSUE Martin Kulldorff, a Swedish native and former Harvard Medical School professor who led Kennedy’s vaccine advisory panel until this month, pointed to that country’s approach to vaccination and public health in an interview with POLITICO earlier this year. Before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this month dropped its recommendation that children of mothers who test negative for hepatitis B receive a vaccine within a day of birth, Kulldorff cited Sweden’s policy. “In Sweden, the recommendation is that you only do that if the mother has the infection. That’s the case in most European countries,” he said. “You could have a discussion whether one or the other is more reasonable.” The U.S. policy, as of Dec. 16, more closely resembles Sweden’s, with hepatitis B-negative mothers no longer urged to vaccinate their newborns against the virus at birth. But Sweden’s public health agency recommends that all infants be vaccinated, and the country’s regional governments subsidize those doses, which are administered as combination shots targeting six diseases starting at 3 months. Public health experts warn that even children of hepatitis B-negative mothers could catch the virus from others via contact with caregivers who are positive or shared household items. The prevalence of chronic hepatitis B in the U.S. is 6.1 percent compared to 0.3 percent in Sweden, according to the Coalition for Global Hepatitis Elimination, a Georgia-based nonprofit which receives funding from pharmaceutical companies, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, among others. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said the U.S. has taken a more comprehensive approach to vaccination, in part because its population is sicker than that of some Western European countries, and the impact of contracting a disease could be more detrimental. Osterholm pointed to the Covid pandemic as an example. By May 2022, the U.S. had seen more than 1 million people die. Other high-income countries — though much smaller — had more success controlling mortality, he said. “People tried to attribute [the disparity] to social, political issues, but no, it was because [peer nations] had so many more people who were actually in low-risk categories for serious illness,” Osterholm said. Kennedy and his advisers also cited European views on Covid vaccination in the spring when the CDC dropped its universal recommendation, instead advising individuals to talk to their providers about whether to get the shot. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, linked the deaths of 10 children to Covid vaccination without providing more detailed information about the data behind his assertion. European countries years ago stopped recommending repeat Covid vaccination for children and other groups not considered at risk of becoming severely sick. Covid shots have been linked to rare heart conditions, primarily among young men. European vaccine experts say Covid boosters were not recommended routinely for healthy children in many countries — not because of safety concerns, but because it’s more cost-effective to give them to high-risk groups, such as elderly people or those with health conditions that Covid could make severely sick and put in the hospital. In the U.K., Covid-related hospitalizations and deaths declined significantly after the pandemic, and now are “mostly in the most frail in the population, which has led to more restricted use of the vaccines following the cost-effectiveness principles,” said Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group in the United Kingdom, which works on developing vaccines and was behind AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 shot. Pollard led the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, which advises the U.K. government, for 12 years before stepping down in September. In the U.S., more moves to follow Europe are likely. At a meeting of Kennedy’s vaccine advisers earlier this month, Tracy Beth Høeg, now acting as the FDA’s top drug regulator, pointed to Denmark’s pediatric schedule, which vaccinates for 10 diseases, while questioning whether healthy American children should be subject to more vaccines than their Danish counterparts. Danish kids typically don’t get shots for chickenpox, the flu, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, respiratory syncytial virus and rotavirus, like American children do, though parents can privately pay for at least some of those vaccines. The country offers free Covid and flu vaccines to high-risk kids. After the vaccine advisory meeting wrapped, Trump said he was on board, directing Kennedy to “fast track” a review of the U.S. vaccine schedule and potentially align it with other developed nations. He cited Denmark, Germany and Japan as countries that recommend fewer shots. Last week, Kennedy came within hours of publicly promoting Denmark’s childhood vaccine schedule as an option for American parents. The announcement was canceled at the last minute after the HHS Office of the General Counsel said it would invite a lawsuit the administration could lose, a senior department official told POLITICO. The notion that the U.S. would drop its vaccine schedule in favor of a European one struck health experts there as odd. Each country’s schedule is based on “the local situation, so the local epidemiology, structure of health care services, available resources, and inevitably, there’s a little bit of political aspect to it as well,” said Erika Duffell, a principal expert on communicable disease prevention and control at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, an EU agency that monitors vaccine schedules across 30 European countries. Vaccine safety isn’t the issue, she said. For example, even though most Europeans don’t get a hepatitis B shot within 24 hours of birth, the previous U.S. recommendation, “there is a consensus that the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine has been confirmed through decades of research” and continuous monitoring, she said. European nations like Denmark and the U.K. have kept new cases of hepatitis B low. Denmark recorded no cases of mother-to-child transmission in 2023, and Britain’s rate of such spread is less than 0.1 percent — though the latter does routinely recommend vaccinating low-risk infants beginning at 2 months of age. European experts point to high levels of testing of pregnant women for hepatitis B and most women having access to prenatal care as the reasons for success in keeping cases low while not vaccinating all newborns. The major differences between the U.S. and the U.K. in their approach to hepatitis B vaccination are lower infection rates and high screening uptake in Britain, plus “a national health system which is able to identify and deliver vaccines to almost all affected pregnancies selectively,” Pollard said. The CDC, when explaining the change in the universal birth dose recommendation, argued the U.S. has the ability to identify nearly all hepatitis B infections during pregnancy because of ”high reliability of prenatal hepatitis B screening,” which some European experts doubt. “If we change a program, we need to prepare the public, we need to prepare the parents and the health care providers, and say where the evidence comes from,” said Pierre Van Damme, the director of the Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination at the University of Antwerp in Belgium. He suggested that, if there was convincing evidence, U.S. health authorities could have run a pilot study before changing the recommendation to evaluate screening and the availability of testing at birth in one U.S. state, for example. WHERE EUROPEANS HAVE MORE DISEASE In some cases, European vaccination policies have, despite universal health care, led to more disease. France, Germany and Italy moved from recommending to requiring measles vaccination over the last decade after outbreaks on the continent. The U.S., until recently, had all but eradicated measles through a universal recommendation and school requirements. That’s starting to change. The U.S. is at risk of losing its “measles-elimination” status due to around 2,000 cases this year that originated in a Texas religious community where vaccine uptake is low. The 30 countries in the European Union and the European Economic Area, which have a population of some 450 million people combined, reported more than 35,000 measles cases last year, concentrated in Romania, Austria, Belgium and Ireland. Europe’s comparatively high rate is linked to lower vaccination coverage than the level needed to prevent outbreaks: Only four of the 30 countries reached the 95-percent threshold for the second measles dose in 2024, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Kennedy touted the U.S.’s lower measles rate as a successful effort at containing the sometimes-deadly disease, but experts say the country could soon see a resurgence of infectious diseases due to the vaccine skepticism that grew during the pandemic and that they say Kennedy has fomented. Among kindergarteners, measles vaccine coverage is down 2.7 percentage points as of the 2024-2025 school year, from a peak of 95.2 percent prior to the pandemic, according to CDC data. That drop occurred before Kennedy became health secretary. Kennedy and his advisers blame it on distrust engendered by Covid vaccine mandates imposed by states and President Joe Biden. But Kennedy led an anti-vaccine movement for years before joining the Trump administration, linking shots to autism and other conditions despite scientific evidence to the contrary, and he has continued to question vaccine safety as secretary. In some EU nations, vaccines aren’t compulsory for school entry. Swedish law guarantees the right to education and promotes close consultation between providers and patients. Some governments fear mandates could push away vaccine-hesitant parents who want to talk the recommended shots over with their doctor before giving the vaccines to their children, Rubin explained. In the U.S., states, which have the authority to implement vaccine mandates for school entry, rely on the CDC’s guidance to decide which to require. Vaccine skeptics have pushed the agency to relax some of its recommendations with an eye toward making it easier for American parents to opt out of routine shots. Scandinavian nations maintain high vaccine uptake without mandates thanks to “high trust” in public health systems, Rubin said. In Sweden, she added, nurses typically vaccinate young children at local clinics and provide care for them until they reach school age, which helps build trust among parents. CHICKENPOX Another example of where the U.S. and Europe differ is the chickenpox vaccine. The U.S. was the first country to begin universal vaccination against the common childhood illness in 1995; meanwhile, 13 EU nations broadly recommend the shot. Denmark doesn’t officially track chickenpox — the vaccine isn’t included on its schedule — but estimates 60,000 cases annually in its population of 6 million. The vastly larger U.S. sees fewer than 150,000 cases per year, according to the CDC. Many European countries perceive chickenpox as a benign disease, Van Damme said. “If you have a limited budget for prevention, you will spend usually the money in other preventative interventions, other vaccines than varicella,” he said, referring to the scientific term for chickenpox. But there’s another risk if countries decide to recommend chickenpox vaccination, he explained. If the vaccination level is low, people remain susceptible to the disease, which poses serious risks to unborn babies. If it’s contracted in early pregnancy, chickenpox could trigger congenital varicella syndrome, a rare disorder that causes birth defects. If children aren’t vaccinated against chickenpox, almost all would get the disease by age 10, Van Damme explained. If countries opt for vaccination, they have to ensure robust uptake: vaccinate virtually all children by 10, or risk having big pockets of unvaccinated kids who could contract higher-risk infections later. Europe’s stance toward chickenpox could change soon. Several countries are calculating that widely offering chickenpox vaccines would provide both public health and economic benefits. Britain is adding the shot to its childhood schedule next month. Sweden is expected to green-light it as part of its national program in the coming months. While the public doesn’t see it as a serious disease, pediatricians who see serious cases of chickenpox are advocating for the vaccine, Rubin told POLITICO. “It is very contagious,” she said. “It fulfills all our criteria.” The U.K. change comes after its vaccine advisory committee reviewed new data on disease burden and cost-effectiveness — including a 2022 CDC study of the U.S. program’s first 25 years that also examined the vaccine’s impact on shingles, a painful rash that can occur when the chickenpox virus reactivates years later. Scientists had theorized for years that limiting the virus’ circulation among children could increase the incidence of shingles in older adults by eliminating the “booster” effect of natural exposure, but the U.S. study found that real-world evidence didn’t support that hypothesis.

On its current trajectory, Europe’s target for ending HIV as a public health threat by 2030 — a key UN goal — will not be met. Whereas once we talked of this being realized, we now find ourselves discussing the need to adjust our approach and accelerate action if we are to get back on track. This is not where we want, or can afford, to be. But it is where we are. > While the global incidence of HIV has declined by 39 percent since 2010, parts > of Europe are now seeing infections rise.1 A key concern is that over half of those diagnosed in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) European region in 2023 were identified at a late stage. Late diagnoses lead to higher mortality and morbidity, and significantly increase healthcare costs, adding a considerable burden to European governments, reaching billions of euros annually. Mortality risk is estimated to be nine times higher in those diagnosed late, while medical costs in the first year are nearly double those of early diagnosed patients.2,3,4 A broader concern is that a failure to provide timely prevention and treatment exacerbates the epidemic by enabling continued transmission. Altering the Trajectory of HIV In Europe, a report by the Office for Health Economics (OHE) and commissioned by ViiV Healthcare, clearly demonstrates the significant consequences of a failure to effectively prevent and treat HIV for patients, healthcare professionals and governments.5 European governments must also manage the complex and evolving healthcare needs of an increasingly elderly HIV community.6 Based on observed trends in prevalence across eight European countries, the report suggests there could be ~100,000 new diagnoses by 2030. > The total estimated cost of new diagnoses alone could reach €4.4 > billion between 2025 and 2030 across seven European countries. This figure, > however, represents only a fraction of the overall financial burden – the > total estimated cost of all HIV care in just five European countries for the > same period is projected to be €56.7 billion. Given the substantial financial implications, an urgent reality check is needed. Europe cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to its HIV response. Failure to act decisively now will result in significant long-term financial and societal burdens. How, then, should we move forward? Ultimately, what the OHE report delivered was recognition of the urgent need for a coordinated effort, one that addresses the challenges facing the European HIV community while acknowledging the consequences if we fail to do so. This is also reinforced by a powerful consensus statement published last year urging the European Commission to address pressing issues related to HIV’s threat in Europe. Signed by multiple stakeholders in the HIV community, including ViiV Healthcare, it sets out a series of recommendations for how Europe should move forward. These include: * Increasing access and adherence to antiretroviral therapies; * Adopting the latest European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines; * Advancing research into new and accessible medicines to enhance the HIV response in Europe; and * Ensuring that underserved populations, including migrants and refugees, have access to healthcare. In addition, the statement calls for community, health organizations, governments and other stakeholders to play a greater role in policy shaping, and for Europe’s institutions to recognize the crucial role civil society can play in reaching key populations. Other goals should include: * Scaling up testing among key populations, particularly hard-to-reach migrant and refugee groups; * Promoting early diagnosis; * Strengthening primary prevention by expanding access to condoms, PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) and ART (antiretroviral treatment); and * Improving data monitoring and collection by developing closer relationships with partner organizations such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and WHO Europe. > However, these goals will only have real impact if they are pursued in an > environment that supports and incentivizes new patient-centric medicines and > solutions, which will be key to driving positive change in HIV treatment and > prevention. For example, while oral pills for HIV prevention treatment are highly effective, we know that some people find it unsuitable and difficult to adhere to, a reticence that affects both health outcomes and overall wellbeing. Long-acting injectables (LAIs) will ultimately enhance adherence7 rates and help reduce the stigma that some users may face through daily pill intake.8 ViiV Healthcare, as the sole global company entirely dedicated to HIV, has been at the forefront of this scientific advancement, pioneering the world’s first long-acting injectables for both treatment and prevention. Our extensive research and development of LAIs underscore our conviction that they are set to play a vital role in ending the HIV epidemic. To drive impact at scale, these transformative solutions must be delivered, and adequately funded, in partnership with governments and other key stakeholders. Now is not the time for complacency or cutbacks; too much is at stake. > We stand at a critical juncture, and it is imperative we recognize that > prioritizing HIV is not merely a public health imperative, but an economic and > social necessity demanding a collective effort. With a new European Parliament in place, politicians committed to Europe meeting the UNAIDS’ target of ending the HIV epidemic as a public health threat by 2030 have the opportunity to advocate for this. This leadership is essential, particularly as global political attention to HIV challenges appears to be diminishing. While some may argue Europe cannot afford to address these challenges, the reality is that the cost of complacency is far greater. The clock is ticking. But there is still time and, by coming together, we can change the trajectory of this epidemic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References: 1 The urgency of now: AIDS at a crossroads. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (2024). Available at: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/2024-unaids-global-aids-update_en.pdf. 2 Boardman E, Boffito M, Chadwick DR, Cheserem E, Kabagambe S, Kasadha B, Elliott C. Tackling late HIV diagnosis: Lessons from the UK in the COVID-19 era. International journal of STD & AIDS. 2024 Mar;35(4):244-53. 3 Guaraldi G, Zona S, Menozzi M, Brothers TD, Carli F, Stentarelli C, Dolci G, Santoro A, Da Silva AR, Rossi E, Falutz J. Late presentation increases risk and costs of non-infectious comorbidities in people with HIV: an Italian cost impact study. AIDS research and therapy. 2017 Feb 16;14(1):8. 4 The Late Presentation Working Groups in EuroSIDA and COHERE. Estimating the burden of HIV late presentation and its attributable morbidity and mortality across Europe 2010–2016. BMC Infect Dis 20, 728 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05261-7 5 Radu P, Hayes H, Tunnicliffe E, Mott D, Hampson G. Altering the Trajectory of HIV in Europe. OHE Contract Research Report, London: Office of Health Economics. Available at: https://www.ohe.org/publications/altering-the-trajectory-of-hiv-in-europe/. 6 Kiplagat J, Tran DN, Barber T, Njuguna B, Vedanthan R, Triant VA, Pastakia SD. How health systems can adapt to a population ageing with HIV and comorbid disease. The Lancet HIV. 2022 Apr 1;9(4):e281-92. 7 Zhang C, Liu Y. Understanding the association between PrEP stigma and PrEP cascade moderated by the intensity of HIV testing. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2022 May 16;7(5):74. 8 Brooks RA, Cabral A, Nieto O, Fehrenbacher A, Landrian A. Experiences of pre-exposure prophylaxis stigma, social support, and information dissemination among Black and Latina transgender women who are using pre-exposure prophylaxis. Transgender health. 2019 Aug 1;4(1):188-96. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is ViiV Healthcare * The ultimate controlling entity is GSK Plc * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding the progress of HIV response in Europe and actions to end HIV as a public health threat by 2030 More information here.

LONDON — A mutated influenza strain is spreading early in Europe this winter, but some experts warn talk of a “superflu” is misleading, erodes public trust and distracts from the underlying problems of the National Health Service. The new strain has triggered dramatic headlines in the U.K., where health leaders are warning of a “worst-case scenario” for the country’s NHS. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described it as a “tidal wave of flu tearing through our hospitals” and labelled it a “challenge unlike any [the NHS] has seen since the pandemic.” While hospital admissions have been rising sharply due to the early arrival of flu season, there is currently no evidence that this season’s variant is more deadly or transmissible, experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) told POLITICO. Neither does the data suggest hospital admissions will peak higher than previous years — although this is possible — just that they’re a few weeks early. But some experts in the U.K. have criticized the government’s “superflu” narrative, suggesting it’s being used as leverage in talks on doctor pay and conditions ahead of a looming strike. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrote in The Guardian Friday it was “beyond belief” doctors would consider striking in these “potentially dire” circumstances, citing “a superflu epidemic.” The British Medical Association (BMA), the union representing resident doctors due to go on strike Wednesday, claimed it was “irresponsible to portray the current winter flu crisis as unprecedented” given that rates of infection and hospitalization were “comparable to most years,” a spokesperson told POLITICO. Mathematician Christina Pagel, a professor at University College London, said the “superflu” line was based on the “highly misleading use of statistics” and had more to do with the impending doctors’ strike than real trends. When contacted by POLITICO, the U.K. government stood by its health leaders’ warnings of the current flu season, in which they described it as an “unprecedented wave of super flu.” They said staff were being “pushed to the limit.” The government also pointed to stats showing the NHS is under pressure. A DHSC spokesperson told POLITICO the government had offered the BMA an extended mandate so they could strike in January instead, but the union rejected it. The BMA told POLITICO the extension included “several restrictive conditions.” THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST The government and NHS bosses have warned the heavy burden on hospitals in December could set the health system up for a very severe winter. NHS statistics published last week show an average of 2,660 patients in hospital with flu per day, a record for this time of year, while the Health Foundation has said the NHS could face “major pressures” if cases continue to climb rapidly in the weeks ahead. Yet, while NHS staff are stretched, Pagel and others argue this year is largely consistent with previous severe flu seasons. However, without being clear about this with the public, some experts are concerned the government’s messaging could do more harm than good. “One of the real issues we have with governments everywhere is trust,” Martin McKee, professor of public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told POLITICO. While NHS staff are stretched, experts argue this year is largely consistent with previous severe flu seasons. | Geography Photos/Getty Images “The difficulty is we’ve seen them do all sorts of things for all sorts of motives. That then becomes a problem whenever they are saying something accurate,” McKee said, adding that the government should be more careful in its flu messaging given the declining trust in science. POLITICO put these concerns over trust in science to DHSC, but the department did not respond by the time of publication. A spokesperson for government-sponsored NHS England told POLITICO: “The NHS is not misleading the public — this is the earliest flu season we have seen in recent years with the latest data showing the numbers of patients in hospital with flu is extremely high for this time of year.” The NHS is struggling as it often does in winter, with a spike in delayed discharges — people who are ready to leave hospital but have nowhere to go — posing an extra challenge for hospitals, The Guardian reported Sunday. Hospital admissions for flu per 100,000 rose 23 percent in last week’s data, compared to 69 percent the previous week, but this doesn’t rule out another surge in the weeks ahead. McKee said the NHS was paying the price for chronic underinvestment. “We almost seem surprised that it’s arrived,” he said of the current flu wave, citing a “massive shortage” in beds, IT equipment and scanners.  WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY There is no reason to think the current flu strain (H3N2 sub-clade K) causes more severe disease than other types of flu, Hans Kluge, head of the World Health Organization’s Europe office, told POLITICO. Nor is there any solid evidence that it is more transmissible, said Edoardo Colzani, a flu expert at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. It’s possible the lower level of immunity to this strain could lead to more cases “but this is still speculative at this stage,” Colzani said. “The epidemiological situation at the moment [in the EU] does not seem worse than in previous years apart from the fact that it is two-to-three weeks earlier,” Colzani said. Kluge said it was “about 4 weeks earlier than usual,” which “is not out of the ordinary” and trending similar to the 2022–2023 influenza season. There were some concerns the available flu vaccine might not be a “perfect match” for the current strain, Kluge said, but early data from the U.K. suggests it provides “meaningful protection” and may prevent severe disease and death, especially among vulnerable groups. “We [could] end up having a much bigger wave than usual but we have no evidence,” Pagel said, adding she thought it was “most likely” to peak “in a couple of weeks.” But the available data can’t tell us whether it will be a normal wave that starts and ends early, or an especially bad season, she added.  “We don’t know when it will turn the corner but the actual shape of the wave doesn’t look that different from previous years,” McKee said. The NHS has previously warned of the risk of a “long and drawn-out flu season” due to the early start. According to the WHO, some countries in the southern hemisphere had unusually long flu seasons this year.  “Based on previous trends, this season is expected to peak in late December or early January,” Kluge said. The advice from EU and U.K. authorities remains the same — get a flu vaccine as soon as possible, especially for those in a vulnerable group.

This article is presented by EFPIA with the support of AbbVie I made a trip back to Europe recently, where I spent the vast majority of my pharmaceutical career, to share my perspectives on competitiveness at the European Health Summit. Now that I work in a role responsible for supporting patient access to medicine globally, I view Europe, and how it compares internationally, through a new lens, and I have been reflecting further on why the choices made today will have such a critical impact on where medicines are developed tomorrow. Today, many patients around the world benefit from medicines built on European science and breakthroughs of the last 20 years. Europeans, like me, can be proud of this contribution. As I look forward, my concern is that we may not be able to make the same claim in the next 20 years. It’s clear that Europe has a choice. Investing in sustainable medicines growth and other enabling policies will, I believe, bring significant benefits. Not doing so risks diminishing global influence. > Today, many patients around the world benefit from medicines built on European > science and breakthroughs of the last 20 years I reflect on three important points: 1) investment in healthcare benefits individuals, healthcare and society, but the scale of this benefit remains underappreciated; 2) connected to this, the underpinning science for future innovation is increasingly happening elsewhere; and 3) this means the choices we make today must address both of these trends. First, let’s use the example of migraine. As I have heard a patient say, “Migraine will not kill you but neither [will they] let you live.”[1] Individuals can face being under a migraine attack for more than half of every month, unable to leave home, maintain a job and engage in society.[2] It is the second biggest cause of disability globally and the first among young women.[3] It affects the quality of life of millions of Europeans.[4] From 2011-21 the economic burden of migraine in Europe due to the loss of working days ranged from €35-557 billion, depending on the country, representing 1-2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[5]   Overall socioeconomic burden of migraine as percentage of the country’s GDP in 2021 Source: WifOR, The socioeconomic burden of migraine. The case of 6 European Countries.5 Access to effective therapies could radically improve individuals’ lives and their ability to return to work.[6] Yet, despite the staggering economic and personal impacts, in some member states the latest medicines are either not reimbursed or only available after several treatment failures.[7] Imagine if Europe shifted its perspective on these conditions, investing to improve not only health but unlocking the potential for workforce and economic productivity? Moving to my second point, against this backdrop of underinvestment, where are scientific advances now happening in our sector? In recent years it is impressive to see China has become the second-largest drug developer in the world,[8] and within five years it may lead the innovative antibodies therapeutics sector,[9] which is particularly promising for complex areas like oncology. Cancer is projected to become the leading cause of death in Europe by 2035,[10] yet the continent’s share of the number of oncology trials dropped from 41 percent in 2013 to 21 percent in 2023.10 Today, antibody-drug conjugates are bringing new hope in hard-to-treat tumor types,[11] like ovarian,[12] lung[13] and colorectal[14] cancer, and we hope to see more of these advances in the future. Unfortunately, Europe is no longer at the forefront of the development of these innovations. This geographical shift could impact high-quality jobs, the vitality of Europe’s biotech sector and, most importantly, patients’ outcomes. [15] > This is why I encourage choices to be made that clearly signal the value > Europe attaches to medicines This is why I encourage choices to be made that clearly signal the value Europe attaches to medicines. This can be done by removing national cost-containment measures, like clawbacks, that are increasingly eroding the ability of companies to invest in European R&D. To provide a sense of their impact, between 2012 and 2023, clawbacks and price controls reduced manufacturer revenues by over €1.2 billion across five major EU markets, corresponding to a loss of 4.7 percent in countries like Spain.[16] Moreover, we should address health technology assessment approaches in Europe, or mandatory discount policies, which are simply not adequately accounting for the wider societal value of medicines, such as in the migraine example, and promoting a short-term approach to investment. By broadening horizons and choosing a long-term investment strategy for medicines and the life science sector, Europe will not only enable this strategic industry to drive global competitiveness but, more importantly, bring hope to Europeans suffering from health conditions. AbbVie SA/NV – BE-ABBV-250177 (V1.0) – December 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] The Parliament Magazine, https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/unmet-medical-needs-and-migraine-assessing-the-added-value-for-patients-and-society, Last accessed December 2025. [2] The Migraine Trust; https://migrainetrust.org/understand-migraine/types-of-migraine/chronic-migraine/, Last accessed December 2025. [3] Steiner TJ, et al; Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache. Migraine remains second among the world’s causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD2019. J Headache Pain. 2020 Dec 2;21(1):137 [4] Coppola G, Brown JD, Mercadante AR, Drakeley S, Sternbach N, Jenkins A, Blakeman KH, Gendolla A. The epidemiology and unmet need of migraine in five european countries: results from the national health and wellness survey. BMC Public Health. 2025 Jan 21;25(1):254. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-21244-8. [5] WifOR. Calculating the Socioeconomic Burden of Migraine: The Case of 6 European Countries. Available at: [https://www.wifor.com/en/download/the-socioeconomic-burden-of-migraine-the-case-of-6-eu­ropean-countries/?wpdmdl=358249&refresh=687823f915e751752703993]. Accessed June 2025. [6] Seddik AH, Schiener C, Ostwald DA, Schramm S, Huels J, Katsarava Z. Social Impact of Prophylactic Migraine Treatments in Germany: A State-Transition and Open Cohort Approach. Value Health. 2021 Oct;24(10):1446-1453. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.04.1281 [7] Moisset X, Demarquay G, et al., Migraine treatment: Position paper of the French Headache Society. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2024 Dec;180(10):1087-1099. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2024.09.008. [8] The Economist, https://www.economist.com/china/2025/11/23/chinese-pharma-is-on-the-cusp-of-going-global, Last accessed December 2025. [9] Crescioli S, Reichert JM. Innovative antibody therapeutic development in China compared with the USA and Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discov. Published online November 7, 2025. [10] Manzano A., Svedman C., Hofmarcher T., Wilking N.. Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2025 – Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines and Molecular Diagnostics. EFPIA, 2025. [IHE REPORT 2025:2, page 20] [11] Armstrong GB, Graham H, Cheung A, Montaseri H, Burley GA, Karagiannis SN, Rattray Z. Antibody-drug conjugates as multimodal therapies against hard-to-treat cancers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2025 Sep;224:115648. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2025.115648. Epub 2025 Jul 11. PMID: 40653109.. [12] Narayana, R.V.L., Gupta, R. Exploring the therapeutic use and outcome of antibody-drug conjugates in ovarian cancer treatment. Oncogene 44, 2343–2356 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-025-03448-3 [13] Coleman, N., Yap, T.A., Heymach, J.V. et al. Antibody-drug conjugates in lung cancer: dawn of a new era?. npj Precis. Onc. 7, 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-022-00338-9 [14] Wang Y, Lu K, Xu Y, Xu S, Chu H, Fang X. Antibody-drug conjugates as immuno-oncology agents in colorectal cancer: targets, payloads, and therapeutic synergies. Front Immunol. 2025 Nov 3;16:1678907. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1678907. PMID: 41256852; PMCID: PMC12620403. [15] EFPIA, Improving EU Clinical Trials: Proposals to Overcome Current Challenges and Strengthen the Ecosystem, efpias-list-of-proposals-clinical-trials-15-apr-2025.pdf, Last accessed December 2025. [16] The EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation & Clawbacks, © Vital Transformation BVBA, 2024.