Deadly fungus that 'eats you from the inside out' invades US: 'Hundreds of thousands of lives at risk'

A lethal fungus that can rot human tissue from within is spreading rapidly across the US, and experts warn the problem could worsen as temperatures rise.
Aspergillus fumigatus is airborne and nearly impossible to avoid. Its spores are so tiny that people inhale them without noticing.
It can cause a serious lung infection called aspergillosis, which in vulnerable individuals can lead to organ failure and death.
Those with weakened immune systems, such as patients with cancer, asthma, or HIV, are especially at risk.
Scientists have found the fungus invading parts of the US, with Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, and California seeing the highest exposure due to hot, humid climates and farming activity.
Major cities like New York, Houston, and Los Angeles face added risks from dense populations and aging infrastructure.
Officials said that aspergillosis isn't a reportable disease in the US, meaning infections, hospitalizations, and deaths aren't tracked, making it hard to detect.
Doctors advise people with weakened immune systems to avoid soil, gardening, and moldy environments, wear masks in dusty areas, and maintain clean air in hospitals and homes. US hospitals have stepped up mold inspections and antifungal protocols.
Co-author Norman van Rhijn, from the University of Manchester, told the Financial Times: 'We're talking about hundreds of thousands of lives, and continental shifts in species distributions.
'In 50 years, where things grow and what you get infected by is going to be completely different.'
About 400,000 of these cases develop into chronic pulmonary aspergillosis, a long-term lung infection.
Invasive aspergillosis is less common but far deadlier. It mainly targets people with weakened immune systems and can spread from the lungs to the brain, heart, and kidneys.
One study found only 59 percent of organ transplant patients survived a year after infection, and just 25 percent of stem cell transplant patients.
Hospitalizations for invasive aspergillosis in the US rose about three percent annually from 2000 to 2013.
By 2014, nearly 15,000 hospital stays were recorded, costing an estimated $1.2 billion.
ICU autopsies show aspergillosis ranks among the top four infections likely to cause death.
The World Health Organization lists Aspergillus fumigatus as a 'critical priority' fungal threat due to rising drug resistance and high death rates.
The fungus thrives in warm, damp environments, even surviving temperatures above 120 degrees Fahrenheit in compost piles.
Climate change is making it easier for the fungus to survive inside the human body as global temperatures rise.
A new study conducted by University of Manchester found that if fossil fuel use continues at current levels, the fungus could expand by more than 75 percent by 2100, putting millions more at risk in the southern US, where conditions mirror those forecasts.
Azole drugs, widely used to treat fungal infections in humans, are also heavily applied in agriculture to protect crops.
Experts warn this overuse may be driving drug resistance, which can transfer from the environment to humans and reduce treatment effectiveness.
A study published in the Applied and Environmental Microbiology, found azole-resistant, Aspergillus fumigatus in farm soil across at least seven US states, with many strains resistant to standard antifungal drugs.
Scientists warn the mixing of different fungal types is speeding resistance spread and suggests the problem is already deeply rooted in US soil.
The WHO urges immediate investment in safer drugs, faster testing, and better training for health workers, while calling on drug companies to prioritize fungal research and include children in clinical trials.
'This isn't science fiction,' said Dr Vyas, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University. 'These infections are real, and we're not ready.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

BBC News

27 minutes ago

• BBC News

'Eldest daughter syndrome' to the rebellious youngest sibling: Does your birth order shape your personality?

The question of whether siblings' birth order shapes their personality has puzzled families and psychologists for years. But the evidence isn't as straightforward as you might think. As the eldest daughter of two, I often identify with the traits stereotypically associated with being the oldest sibling: responsible, conscientious, a perfectionist. My mum is an eldest daughter, too, and also shares those traits. My younger sister, on the other hand, is a bit more carefree – even though she and I grew up in the same household with the same parents, and are close, our personalities are quite different. I wondered whether that difference could be due to our birth order – is there any science to the idea that being the oldest, the youngest, or an only child, shapes who we are, and how we navigate the world? A century-long mystery Despite fascinating the scientific community and public for more than 100 years, the question of whether our birth order amongst siblings shapes our personalities is very much still up for debate. Historically, research has produced inconsistent findings. There are several reasons why this is, though to put it simply: it's hard to measure. Rodica Damian, an associate professor in psychology at the University of Houston, Texas, in the US, explains that previous studies have often included small sample sizes. In addition, since personality tests are often self-reported, they may be affected by bias. Recent studies point out that a number of confounding variables can make it hard to investigate if birth order is systematic, meaning that it affects every person in the same way. The total number of siblings may be a factor, for example: one would expect the overall dynamics to be different in a family with two siblings compared to a family with seven siblings. Being the eldest or youngest child in these differently-sized families might be a very different experience, and not directly comparable. Family size and the experience of being a child in any given family may in turn be entangled with many other factors, such as a family's socioeconomic status (wealthier families with higher socioeconomic status tend to have fewer children, for example). And then there is a person's age and gender, which could influence their experience within the family and beyond. Within this context, researchers have not been able to conclude that birth order has any consistent, universal impacts on our personalities. But that doesn't mean birth order is irrelevant. It could play a role within certain families, or cultures. "I think people have a lot of beliefs that are kind of outdated, or that were never well supported in the first place," says Julia Rohrer, a personality researcher at Leipzig University in Germany. "For example, the 'eldest daughter syndrome' thing is a big one – of course, women often still have different roles and are expected to provide more care. And then, first-borns are expected to take care of younger siblings," she says. "For some women, this might perfectly match their experience but for others it doesn't because every family is different." In other words, not every eldest daughter will be responsible and caring – but for some, the idea of an "eldest daughter syndrome" may ring true because they really did grow up having to look after their younger siblings and feel that this experience shaped them. Rohrer and her colleagues have found that birth order "does not have a lasting effect on broad personality traits" after examining three large datasets from surveys in the UK, US and Germany, each comprising data from several thousand people. However, the study did confirm previous findings on the impact of birth order on one specific trait: intelligence. Intelligence is a complex phenomenon and the study only measures it in the form of performance in intelligence tests, and self-reported intellect. "We confirmed the effect that firstborns score higher on objectively measured intelligence and additionally found a similar effect on self-reported intellect," Rohrer and her colleagues wrote in the study. Previous research had documented that performances in intelligence tests "decline slightly from firstborns to later-borns". As for birth order and other personality traits, Rohrer says reflecting on one's experience can still be meaningful, even if there is no universal pattern: "It does provide a label where you can find other people who grew up in a similar situation, and you can exchange experiences and so on," she says of terms such as "eldest daughter syndrome". There is nothing wrong with framing your experience that way, "as long as you don't assume that this experience is universal," she says. Damian echoes this: "While we don't find differences in personality that are systematic, that doesn't mean that there aren't social processes within each family or within each culture that can lead to different outcomes based on birth order." For example, the UK has a historically (male-preferring) primogeniture culture, meaning the eldest child would be the first in line to inherit family wealth, estate or titles. Only in 2013, with the passing of the Succession to the Crown Act did primogeniture within the monarchy end, removing the power of a male heir to displace an elder daughter in their right to the Crown. The idea of primogeniture is surprisingly widespread and persistent: in Succession, the HBO satirical comedy-drama, about a family's fight to take over a media empire, one character shouts "I'm the eldest boy!" in the finale. He believes his birth position should give him the right to take over his father's position of CEO. (He is actually the second-eldest son, but we won't get into that). "If the social practice is based on birth order, then yes, birth order will impact your outcomes," says Damian. Age is just a number? Age-related experiences can easily be mistaken for a personality trait or behaviour influenced by birth order, the researchers explain. Take the older, "responsible" sibling as an example: "As people grow older, they become more responsible, more self-controlled. So, the firstborn is always going to be older than the later born, and as you observe your children grow, the firstborn will always be more responsible," says Damian. "Another thing is that people become more self-conscious as they grow older," she adds. "So the second-born might appear more sociable and less neurotic, because a 10-year-old is much more happy and full of themselves… compared to the 14-year-old, who's freaking out about everything. That's because they have different challenges." Factors such as children's friendship circles also matter. Multiple studies suggest a link between delinquent peers and delinquent behaviour, for example, so an older child could be more of a rule-breaker depending on the people with whom they surround themselves. Smart siblings As aforementioned, one consistent finding that crops up in birth order research is the link between birth order and intelligence, with firstborns averaging slightly higher in intellect-related traits than younger-borns. "[The intelligence link] mostly shows up in verbal intelligence test results, and it has a very small effect," says Damian. Also, "if you took a test twice, you'll probably score depending on the day or mood, [or] whatever you ate that morning, [or] how long you slept." It may also be explained by cognitive stimulation in the early years of life. Damian points out that the more adults per child you have in a family, the more exposed they are to mature language and vocabulary. But when there are more siblings born into a family, levels of intellectual stimulation might decrease. "So it's not so much that they're genetically smarter or that they have more potential – it's more that they translate into a higher verbal IQ score on the test which could be due to knowing more words, because more adults versus children spoke to them," she says. "With two children, maybe some of that reading time is taken by managing sibling interactions where the verbal input is a little bit less elevated." There are also suggestions that as older siblings tutor younger siblings, or explain things to them, they use "more cognitive resources". Interestingly, these patterns of intelligence aren't replicated globally. Data from developing countries differs to data from developed countries, for example. In Indonesia, later-born siblings are likely to have better educational opportunities than their older siblings, potentially due to financial constraints, easing only when older siblings begin contributing to family income. According to Damian and her colleague, birth order has "negligible effects" on careers, too. In the past, there an idea prevalent among scientists was that the older sibling would enter a more academic or scientific career, and the younger a more creative one. But Damian found the opposite: in her longitudinal study, which looked at a sample of US high students in 1960 and then the same participants 60 years later, first-borns ended up in more creative careers. 'Selfish' only children? Only children often face the stereotype of being more selfish than children born with siblings, supposedly because they do not have to compete for a parents' attention. Recent studies, however, have shown that this is not the case, and that growing up without siblings does not lead to increased selfishness or narcissism. Other research suggests that the social behaviours of only children compared to children with siblings are not large or pervasive, and "may grow smaller with age". Birth order research has typically not included only children on the grounds that they cannot be fairly compared to children who have grown up with siblings. However, it is possible to compare the personality traits of siblings and only children, according to a 2025 paper by Michael Ashton, a professor of psychology at Brock University, Canada, and Kibeom Lee, a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary, Canada. Their study presented some new and fascinating results. It examined the association between personality, birth order, and number of siblings, in 700,000 adults online in one sample and more than 70,000 in another, separate sample. Middle-born and last-born siblings averaged higher on the "Honesty-Humility" and "Agreeableness" scales than first-born siblings. "Honesty-Humility" measures how honest and humble a person is, meaning, a high-scoring person is unlikely to manipulate others, break rules, or feel entitled. A low-scoring person may be more inclined to break rules and may feel a strong sense of self-importance. On the agreeableness scale, a high-scoring person tends to be forgiving, lenient in judging others, even-tempered and willing to compromise, while a low-scoring person may hold grudges, be stubborn, be quick to feel anger, and be critical of others. "These differences were quite small in size, particularly when the comparisons involve people from families having the same number of children," Ashton and Lee say in an email. "In contrast, the differences in these dimensions between persons from a one-child family (i.e., only children) and persons from a six-or-more-child family were considerably larger, somewhere between the sizes that social scientists would call 'small' and 'medium'." So, I ask, is the influence of birth order just a zombie theory – a concept that is wrong but which refuses to die? Rohrer disagrees. "I'm not sure whether I would call it a zombie theory," she says. "From the scientific perspective, I think the literature is progressing quite productively." So we may, one day, have a clearer answer as to what it means to be an eldest daughter. Until then, I'll keep letting my younger sister believe I'm inherently smarter than her. -- For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.

The Sun

40 minutes ago

• The Sun

Chilling rise of TikTokkers peddling dangerous ‘cures' for cancer & other deadly illnesses in sick bid to gain followers

INFLUENCERS are peddling animal dewormer and other dangerous alternative medicines as "cures" for deadly illnesses like cancer in a sick bid to gain followers. Experts have slammed the tips given out on social media as "scary" and dangerous, warning people not to blindly follow influencers. 10 10 10 Many people have tried out the bizarre "hacks", such as the "migraine meal" of drinking coke and eating McDonald's chips that went viral recently. But some TikTokkers are claiming to fix serious and life-threatening illnesses with a quick and easy "magic potion" you can whip up at home. Videos seen by The Sun have influencers confidentially telling their followers that taking dewormer for dogs or horses - which is harmful to humans - gets rid of cancer. Others posted recipes for homemade herbal teas, such as soursop tea, saying that they drank it every day for two weeks and it cured various diseases. Many influencers promote supplements that contain the ancient Indian herb ashwagandha - also saying it helps cure anxiety and a poor sex drive. Hundreds of social media users flocked to the comments sections, begging for more information, with experts worried many people will take such advice as gospel. Cancer sufferers are even among the commenters asking for recipes and recommendations to fight their deadly disease. When The Sun contacted TikTok about the videos peddling alternative cancer cures, those that we flagged were removed. VIRAL DOESN'T MEAN VALID Michael Baah, who is a cancer rehab coach, said it is "scary" people are relying on TikTok and social media for health advice. He explained: "The health advice I see on TikTok lately is wild. One minute it's 'walk 10k steps,' the next it's 'eat pickles to cure cancer' or 'bite a lemon to stop anxiety.' "And the scary part? People are actually giving it a go. "I coach cancer rehab clients every week, and I always tell them, if you're considering any supplement or remedy, speak to your consultant first. "Your health isn't a trend, and it shouldn't be treated like one. "Some of these so-called cures like dog dewormer, fermented pickles, or herbal teas are dangerous when taken seriously. "Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it's harmless, and just because it went viral doesn't make it valid. "If anything, it shows how easy it is to spread false hope to vulnerable people." Often, the TikTok videos point to the online shop in the app where people can buy the supplements mentioned. This advice - mostly from people without any medical knowledge - could lead to patients turning away from vital treatment. 10 10 10 10 Other herbs or supplements could also interfere with any ongoing cancer treatment. Cancer UK warns: "One of the biggest risks of seeking alternative therapy is postponing or declining evidence-based conventional treatment, which might otherwise prolong or even save a patient's life." Gen Z particularly vulnerable New research from City St George's, University of London, recently found that 81 per cent of cancer cures touted by content creators on TikTok are fake. It also found that Gen Z is particularly vulnerable to cancer misinformation, as TikTok is used as a search engine and is a key means of accessing health information for this demographic. TikTok told The Sun that the study had a small sample size and only represented a tiny percentage of the content on the app. It said it takes steps to counter misinformation - which is a problem across all social media, not just the video-based platform. It's not just cancer cures being promoted online, but for a range of both physical and mental illnesses. Anxiety sufferers are told to eat an orange while in the shower. Influencers confidently tell those suffering from the mental illness to bite into a lemon or eat sour skittles or sour patch kids to shock their system out of a panic attack. Others said to eat ice, have a cold drink or an ice bath along a similar vein. Some even claimed that eating fermented pickles also helps. TikTok health advice: What to look out for Check credentials Do they have any relevant qualifications? Are they a certified trainer, registered dietitian, or licensed professional in their field? Real experts will usually highlight their credentials clearly, signposting where they qualified from Do your own research Verify the information they share -don't blindly follow their advice. Look for scientific evidence or expert opinions backing up their claims - there are many health studies online. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Keep and eye out for red flags Be wary if they are promoting extreme products, quick fixes, or other unrealistic hacks. Don't trust overly sensationalised or extreme claims. Are they signposting you to a shop online or a service? They could be benefiting financially from this. Michael added: "Things like eating ice or biting lemons are just sensory distractions. "They might offer a few seconds of relief, but they don't address the root of what someone's feeling. "If anxiety could be cured by Skittles or cold drinks, mental health professionals would be out of business. "As a professional, I think it's important we stick to what's proven: science-backed strategies, structured support, and good old-fashioned common sense. "That's what gets results. Not trending audio and a camera filter. It's spreading misinformation "The bigger issue is how polished and convincing these videos look. "It's easy to get sucked in. But behind the editing and engagement, there's usually no evidence, no credentials, and no real accountability. "So yes, enjoy your orange in the shower if it gives you a lift, but don't confuse that with a treatment plan. "Real health takes consistency, not gimmicks." Dr Kirstie Fleetwood-Meade, who specialises in anxiety, agreed. She told The Sun: "Some people may find regular cold exposure (ice baths or cold showers) are a helpful way to reduce anxiety, alongside input from a qualified health professional, as it can help to regulate the nervous system. "Many TikTok 'anxiety cures' oversimplify a complex mental health problem, misleading people into thinking quick fixes are effective treatments. "This can delay seeking proper care and invalidate real struggles of people who live with anxiety every day. "Because these 'health' influencers often lack professional credentials, they can spread misinformation widely without accountability, and sometimes encourage risky or harmful behaviours." TikTok, Instagram and YouTube are flooded with self-proclaimed "wellness experts" confidently informing their followers of their "credentials". Research published in 2023 discovered that 84 per cent of mental health advice on TikTok is misleading, with 14 per cent of videos containing content that could be harmful. It has been found that "personal narratives are often prioritised over research-backed content". A TikTok spokesperson said: "TikTok is a place where people can share their personal medical treatment experiences and build supportive communities. "We proactively provide trusted health information in-app from the World Health Organisation, partner with independent fact-checkers to verify content, and rigorously enforce policies— to remove any content which breaches this policy." They said that their Community Guidelines ban health misinformation that may cause significant harm and they remove this content from the platform when they find it. Some professionals are beginning to adopt the influencer style of content online - further blurring the lines and making it confusing about who to trust. 10 10 APPLE CIDER VINEGAR One expert pointed to the case of Australian influencer Belle Gibson, who was the subject of Netflix documentary "Apple Cider Vinegar" last year. The wellness warrior pretended to have brain cancer, and falsely told her thousands of followers she had cured herself through alternative therapies and nutrition. She gained a huge following online in 2013 after blogging about her "battle with cancer". Gibson amassed 200,000 followers on Instagram when it was still a new social media platform - a large number back then. CANCER CON I was diagnosed with cancer at 19 and then was scammed by con artist Belle Gibson who said she could cure it By Leanne Hall Belle Gibson is the latest fraudster to have a TV show made on how she swindled people out of money by pretending healthy eating and green juices cured her brain cancer. However, it soon became clear that Belle's natural remedies didn't work and that she never even had cancer to begin with. Starting as a blogger in 2009, Belle claimed she was diagnosed with "malignant brain cancer" and given "six to eight months" to live. However, Belle said she had chosen to withdraw from chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment, and instead embarked on "a quest to heal myself naturally… through nutrition, patience, determination and love". With 200,000 followers on Instagram at the time, many of whom were cancer patients, she conned them into thinking she had found a cure. And one of those was fellow Aussie Bella Johnston. At the age of 19, Bella was diagnosed with a paraganglioma, a rare endocrine tumour, in 2009 and was surrounded by older people in the hospital leaving her feeling isolated. So when she found Belle's social media and saw she was roughly the same age and battling cancer too, she was hooked. Bella saw that the influencer had claimed to manage the disease with diet, exercise and alternative medicine and as a result, Bella wanted to follow in her footsteps. But unbeknownst to Bella, the cancer survivor she looked up to was a con artist who had never had the disease. She then released "The Whole Pantry", a health and wellness app. The fraudster claimed doctors told her she only has "six weeks, four months tops" to live - drawing in thousands of sympathetic followers. From there, she also published a cookbook and raked in $400,000 Australian dollars, pledging to donate a share to charity. In 2015, Gibson was exposed by journalists as a fraudster who lied about her medical records and diagnosis. A federal court ordered her to pay a $410,000 fine plus $30,000 in legal costs for misleading and deceptive conduct - a fine she hasn't paid. Her money-grabbing lies went on to inspire many documentaries. What's worse is that she is only one of a growing list of young, attractive and seemingly inspirational women who fake serious illnesses to make money. Sometimes the families themselves are in on the lie - as with the case of British teenager Megan Bhari. Not only were donors conned out of around £400,000, but they duped celebrities including Louis Tomlinson, Taylor Swift, even winning an award from Prime Minister David Cameron. Aged 15, her mother Jean told friends that her daughter - who already suffered from a disease causing a build-up of pressure on the brain - had been diagnosed with a brain tumour. They started a charity, Believe in Magic, a 'Make-a-Wish'-style organisation to bring hope to seriously ill children. Jean herself posted regular updates about her daughter's hospital visits - at one point even raising £120,000 in 48 hours for emergency treatment in the US, saying Megan's tumour had worsened. She even once claimed that Megan had severe sepsis and that doctors had given her only a 10 per cent chance of surviving the next week - but it was all a lie. An inquest later recorded she died of heart failure related to a fatty liver but there was no mention of a tumour on her medical records. The Charity Commission later launched an investigation into Believe in Magic before freezing its accounts following "multiple complaints." Her charity was dissolved after a probe found nearly £400,000 missing from its books. Police did investigate the complaints but said that there was insufficient evidence to take the matter any further. Do you know more? Email 10 WEB OF LIES I was pals with Apple Cider Vinegar's Belle Gibson but exposed her for the liar she was – her 'seizures' were a red flag By Emma Pryer WHEN Chanelle McAuliffe struck up a friendship with Belle Gibson in October 2014, she thought she'd found a kindred spirit. Despite Belle's, 32, supposed terminal cancer diagnosis and the looming dread that she might not reach her next birthday, she was full of ambition - and that inspired Chanelle, 37. Little did Chanelle know, it was all a lie. Belle, who at the time was running Australia's most known wellness account by claiming she'd curated a natural healing lifestyle that cured her of deadly brain cancer, had never been diagnosed with the deadly illness. The incredible story of the world's most devious con-woman and how her fraudulent business was finally uncovered was made into a Netflix series called Apple Cider Vinegar, which hit the platform earlier this month. The Melbourne mum-of-one's Instagram account, Healing Belle, had more than 300,000 followers by the time she was eventually caught out. The influencer honed in on the fear and bewilderment of her followers and friends - including Chanelle. Most of her followers were people ­genuinely battling terminal cancer, and she was fraudulently telling them to drink green juices and consume organic foods to cure themselves. Her mantra? Western medicine, such as chemotherapy, could not cure you. She kept up the facade of her supposed deadly illness by faking seizures, claiming her 'cancer' was spreading and telling people: "I'm going to die soon anyway." Initially, Chanelle believed it all. But just a few months into their friendship, after she'd watched Belle roll around on the floor having a 'seizure' before miraculously jumping to her feet and wiping saliva from her mouth, alarm bells started to chime.

The Independent

an hour ago

• The Independent

NHS plan for all babies to undergo genome sequencing after birth

Labour plans to invest £650 million into DNA technology to proactively treat serious illnesses. Health secretary Wes Streeting stated this initiative aims to "leapfrog" diseases by predicting and preventing them. Reports suggest that within a decade, all babies could undergo whole genome sequencing as part of this drive. The investment supports the government's 10-year NHS plan, which prioritizes technology, prevention, community care, and digital services. This strategy seeks to provide personalized healthcare, reduce pressure on NHS services, and follows a recent £29 billion annual increase in NHS funding.