TIME Reveals the 2025 TIME100 Health List of the World's Most Influential People in Health
– Today, TIME reveals the second annual TIME100 Health list recognizing the 100 most influential individuals in health.
The 2025 TIME100 Health list includes Princess of Wales Kate Middleton, U.S. Olympic athlete Ilona Maher, former NBA player Dwyane Wade, CEO of Eli Lilly David Ricks, Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese, CEO of GSK Emma Walmsley, founder of Pivotal Ventures and philanthropist Melinda French Gates, director-general of the World Health Organization Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, actor and advocate Colin Farrell, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., actors and founders of Hilarity for Charity Seth Rogen and Lauren Miller Rogen, activist Rachel Sweet, advocate, science educator and television host Bill Nye, CEO of Novartis Dr. Vas Narasimhan, vice president of health at Apple Dr. Sumbul Desai, Global Health Council president Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, U.S. FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and many more.
--See the complete 2025 TIME100 Health list: here
--See the cover, featuring an illustration of Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus by Charly Palmer for TIME: here
To assemble this list, TIME reporters and editors, with guidance of Dr. David Agus and Arianna Huffington, spent months consulting sources and experts around the world to select the 100 individuals who are most influential in the world of health right now. The result is the TIME100 Health, a community of leaders from across industries—scientists, doctors, advocates, educators, and policy makers, among others—changing the health of the world.
On this year's list, TIME editors write: 'This year is unlike any other in the history of global health…. In a year of such upheaval, the TIME100 Health—100 people who are most influential in the world of health right now—looks a bit different.' Link
TIME will convene the TIME100 Impact Dinner: Leaders Shaping the Future to spotlight an array of leaders —including those featured on the 2025 TIME100 Health list —on May 13th in New York City. The event will feature conversations focused on driving innovation and setting trends within the health care sector, with appearances by CNN anchor and senior national correspondent Sara Sidner, NFL player, entrepreneur, and philanthropist Damar Hamlin, advocate, science educator and television host Bill Nye, executive director of icddr Bangladesh and leader in global health and public nutrition Dr. Tahmeed Ahmed, vice president of research of The Trevor Project Ronita Nath, surgical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Dr. Vinod Balachandran, president of Novartis US Victor Bulto, and co-CEO and co-founder of FIGS Trina Spear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should You Invest $1,000 in Eli Lilly today?
Eli Lilly is a pharma player, but it offers the growth of a tech stock thanks to its weight loss drugs portfolio. The weight loss market could represent a multibillion-dollar opportunity well into the next decade. 10 stocks we like better than Eli Lilly › Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) sells a broad range of medicines, from cancer and immunology drugs to treatments for migraine. The pharma giant's presence across several treatment areas has helped it grow earnings over time. But, in recent years, one particular product portfolio has stood out and driven double-digit revenue growth: drugs to help people lose weight. Right now, Lilly sells tirzepatide, commercialized as Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes and as Zepbound for weight loss, though doctors have prescribed either one for patients hoping to shed pounds. Mounjaro and Zepbound each have become blockbusters, bringing in billion-dollar revenue annually. Lilly dominates the weight loss market along with rival Novo Nordisk, but a recent move by Lilly could help it push farther ahead in the coming years. Considering this, should you invest $1,000 in Lilly stock today? Let's find out. So, first, let's talk about Lilly's path so far in this market and what might lie ahead. Lilly's weight loss drugs are part of a class known as dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonists. They act on hormonal pathways involved in the digestion process and help control blood sugar levels and appetite. Novo Nordisk's rival drug, semaglutide -- sold as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes and Wegovy for weight loss -- targets only GLP-1 but works in a similar way. Novo Nordisk was first to market with its product, winning approval for Ozempic in 2017, and this offered it time to build a market-leading position. But demand has been so high for such weight loss drugs that Lilly quickly gained share soon after entering the market with Mounjaro in 2022 and then with Zepbound in 2023. In fact, demand has been so strong that these drugs held spots on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's drug shortage list for quite some time, only exiting the list in recent months. A better supply situation for weight loss drugs isn't due to a drop in demand but instead to increases in manufacturing capacity by both companies. So solid demand for these products still exists -- and is likely to grow. It's important to keep in mind, though, that both Lilly and rivals may face some headwinds in the years to come, and that's why Goldman Sachs Research recently reduced its forecast for global sales of anti-obesity medicines to $95 billion by 2030, from an earlier forecast of $130 billion. This is due to several potential challenges, including lower per-unit prices and weaker reimbursement from certain insurers. But even considering the challenges, "we see a significant growth opportunity for both existing players as well as new entrants into this market," said Goldman analyst Asad Haider. After all, from today's $28 billion market, the forecast figure represents a 239% increase. A look at Lilly's weight loss drug sales shows us this company has the momentum to benefit from this high-growth market. Last year, Mounjaro and Zepbound generated more than $11 billion and $4.9 billion in sales, respectively. And these two products are driving double-digit total sales growth at Lilly -- with a 32% gain in the full year and a 45% gain in the most recent quarter. Now, what may push Lilly past Novo Nordisk -- and keep it far ahead of newer rivals down the road -- is the company's progress on an oral weight loss candidate. Current products are in injectable form, which may be less convenient and even uncomfortable for certain users. Lilly recently reported positive results from a phase 3 trial of its oral candidate, orforglipron, and plans to request approval for use in weight management by the end of the year. Though Novo Nordisk sells an oral form of semaglutide, it involves strict food and water guidelines. The potential Lilly product doesn't, offering it a significant advantage. Now, let's return to our question: Should you invest $1,000 in Lilly right now? The shares are trading for 34 times forward earnings estimates -- that's around the same level as top tech companies such as Amazon and Nvidia, also known for delivering double-digit revenue growth. In fact, since the launch of tirzepatide, Lilly has traded at valuations resembling those of growth stocks. So it may seem pricey to you for a pharmaceutical player. But it's worth keeping in mind that Lilly stands out from the pharma crowd due to its presence in the high-growth market of weight loss drugs, yet at the same time it offers you the stability and dividend growth of a pharma stock. You generally can count on big pharma companies for steady revenue since patients always need their medicines -- regardless of the economic situation. And you can count on Lilly for passive income too, with a forward dividend of $6, representing a dividend yield of 0.8%. Meanwhile, valuation has come down from its peak to levels that look very acceptable for a growth stock. All of this means that, by investing in Lilly, you're getting growth worthy of a tech company along with the safety generally associated with a pharma stock. That makes the stock well worth the price, and a great place to park $1,000 right now. Before you buy stock in Eli Lilly, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Eli Lilly wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $656,825!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $865,550!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Adria Cimino has positions in Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Goldman Sachs Group, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Invest $1,000 in Eli Lilly today? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
CNBC
12 hours ago
- CNBC
JPMorgan's top biotech and pharma picks for the second half
Biopharmaceutical stocks' underperformance versus the broader market for a third-straight year is an opportunity for investors, according to JPMorgan. Analyst Chris Schott said in the firm's June outlook for biopharma that the sector's poor performance can be traced back to concerns over President Donald Trump's tariffs and his " most favored nation " executive order. The SPDR S & P Biotech ETF (XBI) has pulled back about 7% so far in 2025, while the S & P 500 has notched a nearly 2% gain. The stock action is overdone, according to Schott, as he expects any impact from this policy will be "manageable." Valuations are historically depressed, Schott said, which means the sector has already priced in the the worst possible outcome. "The sector [should be] able to largely mitigate the impact of tariffs in the mid/long term through manufacturing repatriation and 2) [there's] no clear path for MFN ["most favored nation"] to move forward without Congressional approval (outside of IRA price negotiations)," Schott said. Fundamentals for biopharma stocks have improved in recent years, which should support "a more manageable sales/EPS erosion outlook for most names," he added. Here's a look at some of JPMorgan's favorite biotech and pharma stocks heading into the second half of the year. All stocks on the list are rated overweight by the firm. Eli Lilly stock is among JPMorgan's top picks among the group. Shares are about flat in 2025, and have slipped roughly 8% over the past 12 months. The company agreed to purchase SiteOne Therapeutics in a roughly $1 billion deal last week , which could allow Lilly to develop non-opioid treatments for chronic pain conditions. LLY YTD mountain Eli Lilly stock in 2025. Developing non-opioid pain drugs is a key focus for the industry, with Vertex Pharmaceuticals recently approving its Journavx Nav1.8 inhibitor. About 84% of analysts polled by FactSet maintain a buy rating on Eli Lilly stock, with their consensus price target equating to nearly 29% upside. Gilead Sciences is also one of JPMorgan's top picks. Shares have soared more than 20% so far in 2025. GILD YTD mountain Gilead Sciences stock in 2025. Analysts surveyed by FactSet think the stock has more room to run after a strong first half of the year. Alongside a consensus buy rating, the average analyst price target calls for more than 5% upside. The company recently announced key phase three trial data tied to its Trodelvy cancer treatment that showed the drug lowered the risk of a severe form of breast cancer when used in combination with Merck 's Keytruda immunotherapy treatment. Other names on the list include Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb .
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
From 'nude parades' to Imane Khelif: The problematic history of gender verification at the Olympics
Algeria's Imane Khelif celebrates during a medals ceremony after winning gold in the women's 66 kg final boxing match at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Less than a week before Imane Khelif was poised to return to competitive women's boxing, the sport's new global governing body set up a potential roadblock. World Boxing announced last Friday that Khelif cannot participate in any future women's events unless the Olympic champion takes a gender verification test to prove that Khelif is biologically female. Advertisement The International Olympic Committee ignited global outcry in Paris last summer when it allowed Khelif to march to a gold medal in the women's welterweight division. Only a year earlier, Khelif was disqualified before the gold-medal bout of the International Boxing Association's world championships. The IBA, then recognized as amateur boxing's global governing body, claimed that a sex test showed the presence of Y chromosome and ruled Khelif ineligible to compete against women. Three months later, the IOC stripped the IBA of its governing status for multiple reasons, after which IOC leaders chose to overlook Khelif's alleged failed gender test because they had questions about the fairness of the IBA's process. That turned the IOC into a piñata for critics at last summer's Olympic Games as Khelif pummeled an overmatched Italian fighter into quitting in 46 seconds, then toyed with her remaining opponents while displaying superior reach and punching power. In February, the IOC recognized World Boxing as its new governing body for the sport — and assessing how to be fair to Khelif and her potential female opponents instantly moved atop World Boxing's to-do list. The solution that World Boxing chose was making sex testing mandatory for all boxers who compete in events it sanctions. The organization announced the policy change ahead of this week's Eindhoven Box Cup to get ahead of the tournament Khelif was targeting for her potential return. 'This decision reflects concerns over the safety and well-being of all boxers, including Imane Khelif,' World Boxing said in last Friday's statement. 'It aims to protect the physical and mental health of all participants in light of some of the reactions that have been expressed in relation to the boxer's potential participation at the Eindhoven Box Cup.' Advertisement The Khelif controversy exemplifies why dividing athletes into male and female categories for competition isn't always straightforward. Gender policing has existed in women's sports for nearly a century as administrators have grappled with deliberate cheating, transgender athletes and complex medical conditions resulting in ambiguous development of sex organs. Sports governing bodies have used anything from invasive visual examinations, to testosterone tests, to chromosome analyses in their long-running attempts to distinguish men from women. The most common outcome has been humiliation for female athletes confronted for the first time with the possibility that their genitalia, internal anatomy, hormones or chromosomes developed differently than most of their peers. That presents a conundrum for sporting governing bodies: How should they treat an athlete who was classified female at birth and identifies as a woman yet possesses a Y chromosome? How should they handle it when that athlete's differences in sexual development offer a potential advantage in sporting performance over other female competitors? Dr. Richard Holt, professor of endocrinology at the University of Southampton, describes that decision as a 'minefield.' Advertisement Says Holt, 'There is no easy solution — all have potential pitfalls.' Helen Stephens smiles for the cameraman after setting a world record in the 100 meter finals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. (Getty Images) (Bettmann via Getty Images) 'The nude parade' The desire to define who counts as a woman for the purpose of sports dates back to Hitler's Olympics. On the night of Aug. 4, 1936, 18-year-old Helen Stephens of Fulton, Missouri, went to bed the newly crowned fastest woman in the world. The next morning, Stephens awoke to an international firestorm. A Polish newspaper correspondent could not accept that Stephens had defeated famed Polish sprinter Stella Walsh to win Olympic gold in the 100-meter dash. He published a story discrediting Stephens' world record performance by alleging that the tall, muscular American with an unusually deep voice was really a man masquerading as a woman. Advertisement Rather than dismissing the Polish sportswriter's accusation as sour grapes, Olympic officials responded by revealing that they had anticipated such a controversy. They told reporters they had Stephens examined before the Olympics and cleared her to compete after confirming she was female. At least one U.S. media outlet reached out to Stephens' mother seeking her response to the speculation about her daughter's gender. 'Helen is absolutely a girl,' Bertie May Stephens told the reporter by telephone from Missouri, adding that she better not say what she thinks of 'anyone who would charge that she is anything else.' The scandal reflected the growing unease at the time over the physical appearance of female athletes enjoying success in sports once deemed too strenuous for women. They were often perceived as suspiciously masculine because they didn't conform to the era's notion of femininity. Advertisement In early 1936, American Olympic Committee chairman Avery Brundage wrote to IOC colleagues expressing concern about 'various female (?) athletes in several sports' who seemed to possess 'apparent characteristics of the opposite sex.' 'Perhaps some action has already been taken on this subject,' Brundage added. 'If not, it might be well to insist on a medical examination before participation in the Olympic Games.' The first known gender verification rule in women's sports took effect less than a week after Stephens' gold medal win in Berlin. Track and field's international governing body implemented a policy requiring female athletes to submit to physical examination should any protest be filed regarding their sex. When the Olympics first became a stage for Cold War tensions in the 1950s, familiar concerns about female athletes deemed too man-like suddenly were seen through a geopolitical lens. Rumors flew that the brawniest female athletes from the Soviet Union and other Eastern-bloc nations were taking performance-enhancing drugs or were actually men in disguise. Advertisement Soviet track and field stars Irina and Tamara Press, sisters who combined to claim five Olympic gold medals and set 26 world records, aroused the most suspicion. Western media outlets derisively labeled Irina and Tamara 'the Press brothers.' In 1964, a New York Times reporter wrote that Tamara 'was big enough to play tackle for the Chicago Bears' and that 'they could probably use her, too.' In 1966, international track and field officials responded by enforcing a mandatory sex testing policy often referred to by athletes as 'the nude parade.' Every female participant at that year's Commonwealth Games had to undress on-site before the meet and display themselves to doctors for visual inspection. Irina and Tamara Press hung up their track spikes and retired. Other athletes gritted their teeth and endured the humiliation. In an interview with NPR's 'Tested' podcast last year, Canadian discus thrower Carol Martin described being taken into a large room underneath the stands and having 'to pull my pants down in front of this woman so she could see I had a vagina.' 'I remember thinking, 'What the [expletive] is this?'' Martin told the podcast. 'And I was a nice person. I never said that at the time, but I remember thinking, 'Whoa, this seems a little invasive. This seems a little inappropriate. I mean, can't you see I'm a girl?'' Advertisement Nude parades, unsurprisingly, proved deeply unpopular. Athletes successfully campaigned to abolish the practice after only two years. Algeria's Imane Khelif, right, defeated Italy's Angela Carini in their women's 66 kg preliminary boxing match at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Carini abandoned the fight after just 46 seconds. (AP Photo/John Locher, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS) 'There's definitely not an easy solution' Modern methods of sex testing may only require a swab to the cheek or a few drops of blood, but critics contend they're still traumatic. Athletes rights advocate and Humans of Sport founder Payoshni Mitra has worked on behalf of numerous high-profile athletes revealed to have unusually high testosterone levels. Some battled through severe depression, Mitra said. One family even lost their daughter to suicide. About a decade and a half ago, Caster Semenya became the unwilling face of a complex, emotionally charged debate over what to do with athletes who don't fit neatly in the 'male' or 'female' category. The muscular South African middle-distance star blew away the women's 800 meters field at the 2009 World Championships, but she couldn't outrun the whispers and innuendo that followed. Advertisement 'For me she is not a woman,' said one beaten fellow finalist, Italy's Elisa Cusma Piccione. Another overmatched rival, Russia's Mariya Savinova, sneered, 'Just look at her.' At the request of track and field's governing body, Semenya submitted to a gender verification test and found out along with the rest of the world that she was different. While Semenya was born with a vagina and assigned female at birth, her test results showed XY chromosomes, no uterus and unusually high testosterone levels. Stunned and devastated, Semenya weighed her options. Either she had to quit track at age 18 on the heels of winning World Championship gold or consent to hormone treatment to lower her testosterone to a predetermined level. Advertisement The hormones felt like 'poison,' Semenya wrote in her 2023 memoir 'The Race To Be Myself,' but she fought through panic attacks, night sweats and nausea to keep flourishing. Second place finishes at the 2011 World Championships and the 2012 Olympics were later upgraded to gold medals when Savinova was found guilty of doping. Semenya also led a podium sweep by DSD runners at the 2016 Olympics after the Court of Arbitration for Sport temporarily forced World Athletics to suspend its testosterone regulations. On the eve of the 2016 Olympic final in the women's 800, Yahoo Sports asked American 800-meter runner Ajee' Wilson how she felt about Semenya. Should Semenya be free to compete without being forced to take testosterone suppressants? Or should her basic rights be infringed on to avoid unfairly disadvantaging the other female competitors? 'There's definitely not an easy solution,' Wilson conceded. 'There's a saying that says you shouldn't really come hard at a problem unless you have a solution. I don't have one at this point, so I have to go with the flow of things.' While World Athletics now administers gender tests to all female athletes, from 1999 to 2024, track and field's governing body tested only targets of suspicion. Human Rights Watch condemned that approach in 2020, pointing out that the athletes being ensnared by sex testing were 'overwhelmingly women of color from the Global South.' Advertisement Among those is Annet Negesa, a promising Ugandan middle-distance runner targeted under sex testing regulations and found to have unusually high testosterone levels. Negesa agreed to undergo what she was told was minor surgery in late 2012 in hopes of altering her body and saving her career. When she awoke in a hospital bed, she told Human Rights Watch in 2020 that she had scars on her belly and discharge papers mentioning an orchiectomy — a procedure to remove testicles. The recovery from the surgery was long and painful. Never again did Negesa regain her previous fitness levels. Her manager dropped her and her university yanked away her scholarship. Today Negesa lives in Germany, where she was granted asylum in 1999. The athlete ambassador to Humans of Sport shares her story as often as possible in hopes that it can help others. She has been following Imane Khelif's story from afar. 'I am extremely disappointed to see how another athlete from a different sport is being made to face such a public trial,' Negesa said this week in a statement to Yahoo Sports. 'It is devastating for the athlete. Federations must act responsibly. They have played with our lives for too long.' Both IOC president Thomas Bach (R) and IOC spokesman Mark Adams defended the IOC's decision to allow Imane Khelif to participate in the Paris Olympics, calling tests that showed Khelif has a male karyotype not legitimate. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images) (FABRICE COFFRINI via Getty Images) IOC has egg on its face Thirty-six hours after World Boxing ruled that Khelif would need to pass a gender verification test to be eligible to fight against women again, the document at the heart of this entire saga may have surfaced. Advertisement American sportswriter Alan Abrahamson, formerly of the Los Angeles Times, published to his website what appears to be a leaked image of Khelif's sex-test results from the 2023 IBA world championships in New Delhi. The chromosome analysis says that Khelif has a 'male karyotype' (an individual's complete set of chromosomes). IBA officials had previously alleged without offering proof that Khelif was XY. It's unclear how Abrahamson attained the apparent leaked document or whether it is legitimate. Neither Khelif nor anyone with the Algerian Boxing Federation have publicly addressed the report or World Boxing's mandatory sex testing policy. The test results carry the letterhead of Dr. Lal Path Labs in New Delhi, accredited by the American College of Pathologists and certified by the Swiss-based International Organisation for Standardisation. That appears to fly in the face of claims made last August by IOC spokesman Mark Adams, who during a news conference at the Paris Olympics took the stance that any test administered by the IBA was essentially fruit from a poison tree. Advertisement 'The tests themselves, the process of the tests, the ad hoc nature of the tests, are not legitimate,' Adams said. Also left with egg on his face is IOC president Thomas Bach, who several times insinuated that the Khelif test results were part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The IBA is run by Umar Kremlev, a Russian businessman with close ties to the Kremlin. "This was part of the many, many fake news campaigns we had to face from Russia before Paris and after Paris," Bach told Reuters last March. If the leaked test results put pressure on IOC officials to explain why they believe they're illegitimate, they also increase the burden on Khelif to make a public comment. Advertisement When speaking to reporters in Paris after her gold-medal match victory last summer, Khelif brushed aside questions about her gender. "I am a woman, like any other woman,' Khelif said. 'I was born a woman. I have lived as a woman. I compete as a woman.' Khelif has previously said she wants to win a second gold medal at the 2028 Los Angeles Games. For now, the notion of her receiving clearance to fight against women again at a future Olympics is becoming more difficult to envision.
