One of the largest known stars in the universe underwent a dramatic transformation in 2014, new research shows, and may be preparing to explode.
A study led by Gonzalo Muñoz-Sanchez at the National Observatory of Athens, published in Nature Astronomy today, argues that the enormous star WOH G64 has transitioned from a red supergiant to a rare yellow hypergiant – in what may be evidence of impending supernova.
The evidence suggests we may be witnessing, in real time, a massive star shedding its outer layers, shrinking as it heats up, and moving closer to the end of its short life.
A very special star
WOH G64 was first discovered in the 1970s as as star of interest in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy orbiting the Milky Way.
It turned out the star was not only extremely luminous, but also one of the biggest ever discovered: more than 1,500 times the radius of the Sun.
In 2024, WOH G64 was the first star beyond our galaxy ever photographed in detail, thanks to the Very Large Telescope Interferometer. The image showed a clear dusty cocoon around the central giant star, which confirmed it was losing mass as it aged.
From supergiant to hypergiant, big is big
WOH G64 is a young star in the grand scheme of the cosmos, with an estimated age of less than 5 million years old. Unlike our Sun (currently about 4.6 billion years old), WOH G64 is destined to live fast and die young.
WOH G64 was born big, forming from a huge cloud of gas and dust collapsing until the pressure made it ignite. Like our Sun, it would have burned hydrogen in its core by nuclear fusion.
Later it would have expanded and burned helium, becoming what is called a red supergiant.
Not all supergiants become hypergiants. It’s been theorised that hypergiants form when very large stars quickly burn and evolve from burning hydrogen to burning helium.
During this transition, these stars start to shed their outer layers, while their cores begin to shrink inwards. Once a star becomes a hypergiant, it is destined for a quick death in the fiery explosion of a supernova.
What has caused this change seen in WOH G64?
So what happened to WOH G64 in 2014? The new study proposes that a large part of the original supergiant’s surface was ejected away from the star.
This may have been due to interactions with a companion star, which the authors have confirmed exists by looking at the spectrum of light from WOH G64.
Another theory: the star is getting ready to explode. We know stars this big will inevitably go kaboom, but exactly when it will happen can be hard to determine in advance.
One possible scenario is that the transition we’re seeing is due to a pre-supernova “superwind” phase. This is theorised to occur due to strong internal pulsations as the fuel in the core is spent quickly.
Only time will tell
Most stars live for tens of millions or even tens of billions of years. It was never a given we would witness and be able to document so much transformation in a star, let alone one outside our galaxy.
If we are lucky, we will see the death of WOH G64 in our lifetimes – not only providing an incredible intergalactic spectacle but also helping scientists complete the puzzle of this fascinating star.
Sara Webb does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By John (Eddie) La Marca, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)
If you’re feeling worn out or have suddenly lost some weight, your doctor might send you for a blood test.
Blood tests are a common way health-care professionals detect, diagnose, and monitor a range of medical conditions.
But can they help us detect more serious conditions such as cancer? Let’s dive into the research.
How do blood tests work?
Blood tests are a technique used in the field of pathology, which is the study of the nature and causes of disease.
Blood tests assess what cells, proteins, and molecules are present in the blood. Health-care professionals use them to monitor things like organ health, nutrition levels, immune system function, and the presence of some infections.
To test for anaemia, for example, you would take a blood test and count the number of red blood cells in that blood sample. Another example is blood sugar testing, which is used to measure the glucose levels of a patient with diabetes.
What can blood tests tell us about cancer?
Currently, we can’t reliably diagnose most cancers using a blood test. One major reason is it’s often difficult to distinguish between cancer cells and normal, healthy cells. This is especially true when it comes to early-stage tumours.
But blood test results can give us clues about whether certain cancers are present in the body. So how do they do this?
1. By revealing abnormalities in your blood
Blood cancers will often cause clear changes in the number and types of cells in the bloodstream. We can measure these changes using a complete blood count, also known as a “full blood examination”.
This type of blood test counts all the different types of cells present in the blood: red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and more. Blood cancers arise when your body produces an abnormal amount of any type of blood cell. White blood cells, which fight infection, are the most common example. So a high number of one or more of these cell types may suggest the presence of a blood cancer.
But complete blood counts aren’t enough to make a conclusive diagnosis of blood cancer. We need to perform other tests to confirm whether the problem is a cancer or a different disease. These tests may include a biopsy or imaging techniques such as an MRI, CT scan, or X-ray.
2. By identifying “tumour markers”
We can also use blood tests to detect specific proteins which cancer cells often produce in greater numbers. These proteins are known as “tumour markers”.
One example of a tumour marker is prostate-specific antigen. This antigen is a protein made exclusively by the prostate gland. A healthy male will have only a small amount of prostate-specific antigen in his blood. In contrast, a male with prostate cancer will often produce abnormally high levels of this antigen. In this way, the prostate-specific antigen can serve as a “marker” of prostate cancer.
There are many different tumour markers used to identify different cancers. However, measuring tumour markers is not a foolproof solution. This is because they can be influenced by other factors. For example, an injury to or inflammation of the prostate gland could cause prostate-specific antigen levels to increase. So your doctor may perform additional tests to confirm if a person has cancer.
For other types of cancer, blood tests can look for circulating tumour cells. Circulating tumour cells are produced when cancer cells break off from the original tumour and then enter the bloodstream. This usually only happens when a cancer reaches a more advanced stage and is metastatic, meaning it has spread to other parts of the body.
But this type of test is usually prognostic, rather than diagnostic. This means we can only use it to monitor the progression of a cancer which has already been diagnosed. So if a blood test does identify circulating tumour cells, it is best to conduct additional tests before proceeding with treatment.
So, are we close to creating a cancer-detecting blood test?
Unfortunately, we are yet to find a way to detect cancer with a single blood test. It’s a very difficult task, but researchers are making progress.
Circulating tumour DNA is a current topic of interest. These DNA molecules have mutations which distinguish them from healthy cells and can give information about the cancer they came from.
In one 2025 trial, Australian researchers measured the amount of circulating tumour DNA in 441 people with colon cancer to determine which patients would respond to chemotherapy. Another study from 2025 used circulating tumour DNA to monitor how 940 patients with lung cancer responded to different treatments.
One test did claim to successfully use circulating tumour DNA to detect more than 50 types of early-stage cancer. It’s known as the “Galleri test” and was first trialled in the UK in 2021. However, some experts have since raised concerns about the test’s effectiveness.
Researchers are also exploring other ways of using blood tests. In one 2025 study, Australian researchers adapted an existing test to use blood instead of tissue samples to identify known markers of ovarian cancer.
Another Australian study from 2025 investigated whether molecules other than proteins could serve as cancer markers. It found certain fats in blood can indicate if a patient with advanced prostate cancer will respond to treatment.
So, it looks like we’re still a while away from creating a cancer-detecting blood test. But with some time, effort, and robust research, it could be a possibility.
John (Eddie) La Marca receives funding from Cancer Council Victoria. He is affiliated with the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.
Cameron Lewis receives funding from the University of Melbourne as part of a PhD scholarship. He is employed by Austin Health as a clinical haematologist.
Sarah Diepstraten receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cure Cancer Australia and My Room Children’s Cancer Charity.
Primary care – the kind delivered by general practice (GP) clinics – is the backbone of every health system. When it works, we barely notice it.
It keeps people healthy, detects problems early, coordinates care and keeps people out of hospital.
But across many high-income countries, despite very different health systems, primary care is under unprecedented strain.
Our recently published paper presents case studies from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
All show governments are leaning on primary care to solve increasingly complex health needs. At the same time, bureaucracies are demanding more documentation, compliance, performance metrics and administrative work.
However, very little new investment is going into the four parts of primary care that matter most:
continuity: seeing the same health provider over time, rather than pinballing from one specialist to another
comprehensiveness: getting the whole family’s physical, mental and social health care from one place
coordination: ensuring all the different people and services involved in a patient’s care work together smoothly, information is shared and roles are clear, so patients don’t fall through the cracks
first-contact care: being able to get an appointment with a doctor or nurse you know, when you need it.
Ballooning administrative burdens
These are the core functions of effective primary care, and they are what reduce hospital visits. But across many countries, the GP workforce is shrinking or stagnating just as populations are ageing and multi-morbidity is increasing.
Medical graduates are turning away from general practice, citing high workloads, lower pay relative to other specialities, and the emotional weight of increasingly complex care.
Many GPs who stay in practice are reducing their hours, not because they lack commitment, but because the amount of unpaid work required outside of the consulting room makes full-time practice untenable.
Administrative burdens have ballooned. Electronic health-record systems generate endless inbox tasks. As hospitals push chronic care back into the community, GPs absorb more responsibility without receiving the resources to match.
The result is predictable: practices stop enrolling new patients, waiting times blow out, and people who cannot get timely care turn instead to emergency departments.
These alternatives are often far more expensive, lack continuity, and do not offer the long-term relationships that help detect disease early and manage chronic conditions effectively.
Quick wins, long-term losses
Many of the countries facing these problems spend less than 6% of their total health budget on primary care. For example, the US spends 4%, New Zealand 5.4% and Australia 6%. But how the money is allocated is as important as the amount itself.
Funding models in many countries fail to support team-based care – a collaborative, coordinated model of healthcare delivery in which multiple health professionals work together with patients and their families.
Governments often finance new roles – for example, physician assistants – in isolation, without ensuring practices have the infrastructure to integrate them safely and effectively. This creates inefficiencies and fragmentation.
Poorly designed “pay-for-performance” measures can make things worse. So, when funding is linked to disease-specific indicators rather than the core functions of high-quality primary care, clinicians end up spending more time on documentation and less on patients.
Continuity and comprehensiveness, the strongest predictors of better health outcomes, remain largely unmeasured and unrewarded.
The benefits of primary care investment accumulate slowly – fewer hospital admissions, better management of chronic disease, reduced premature mortality. But political cycles reward quick wins. Governments are tempted to fund initiatives that reduce waiting lists in months, not strengthen foundations for decades.
The result is a proliferation of short-term “solutions” that crowd out the long-term reforms primary care actually needs. The system that prevents downstream costs is neglected because its benefits are not immediately visible.
Toward a sustainable health system
Primary care is relationship-based. That continuity – knowing patients, their histories, their families and the context of their lives – is what allows efficient decision-making and prevents unnecessary interventions.
When investment flows into standalone or narrow services instead of strengthening general practice, care becomes episodic. This can result in poor followup and patients bouncing between providers who are working without shared information.
This fragmentation increases costs while reducing quality, even though each individual initiative may look beneficial in isolation. Once the foundation cracks, the entire system becomes more expensive to maintain but less effective.
The solutions are clear, and are strikingly consistent across countries. A whole-of-system approach is needed to:
set explicit investment targets for primary care
align funding, workforce planning and service delivery
invest in true multidisciplinary teams, not piecemeal roles
prioritise continuity, comprehensiveness, and first-contact access in funding models
and create long-term accountability structures that survive election cycles.
Countries that have strong primary care systems will spend less overall on health, have better population health outcomes, and enjoy greater equity. Those that neglect primary care pay for it many times over in hospital pressures, workforce burnout and widening inequities.
Strengthening primary care is not just another reform. It is the only path to a sustainable health system. Countries that fail to recognise this are already seeing the consequences.
Felicity Goodyear-Smith has received funding from the NZ Health Research Council, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, and other NZ research funding bodies.
A baby macaque monkey named Punch has gone viral for his heart-wrenching pursuit of companionship.
After being abandoned by his mother and rejected by the rest of his troop, his zookeepers at Ichikawa City Zoo in Japan provided Punch with an orangutan plushie as a stand-in mother. Videos of the monkey clinging to the toy have gone viral worldwide.
But Punch’s attachment to his inanimate companion is not just the subject of a heartbreaking video. It also harks back to the story of a famous set of psychology experiments conducted in the 1950s by US researcher Harry Harlow.
The findings from his experiments underpin many of the central tenets of attachment theory, which positions the bond between parent and child as crucial in child development.
What were Harlow’s experiments?
Harlow took rhesus monkeys from birth, and removed them from their mothers. These monkeys were raised in an enclosure in which they had access to two surrogate “mothers”.
One was a wire cage shaped into the form of a “mother” monkey, which could provide food and drink via a small feeder.
The other was a monkey-shaped doll wrapped in terry towelling. This doll was soft and comfortable, but it didn’t provide food or drink; it was little more than a furry figure the baby monkey could cling to.
So, we have one option that provides comfort, but no food or drink, and one that’s cold, hard and wiry but which provides dietary sustenance.
These experiments were a response to behaviourism, which was the prevailing theoretical view at the time.
Behaviourists suggested babies form attachments to those who provide them with their biological needs, such as food and shelter.
Harlow challenged this theory by suggesting babies need care, love and kindness to form attachments, rather than just physical nourishment.
A behaviourist would have expected the infant monkeys to spend all their time with the wire “mother” that fed them.
In fact, that’s not what happened. The monkeys spent significantly more time each day clinging to the terry towelling “mother”.
Harlow’s 1950s experiments established the importance of softness, care and kindness as the basis for attachment. Given the opportunity, Harlow showed, babies prefer emotional nourishment over physical nourishment.
How did this influence modern attachment theory?
Harlow’s discovery was significant because it completely reoriented the dominant behaviourist view of the time. This dominant view suggested primates, including humans, function in reward and punishment cycles, and form attachments to whoever fulfils physical needs such as hunger and thirst.
Emotional nourishment was not a part of the behaviourist paradigm. So when Harlow did his experiments, he flipped the prevailing theory on its head.
The monkeys’ preference towards emotional nourishment, in the form of cuddling the furry terry towel-covered surrogate “mother”, formed the foundation for the development of attachment theory.
Attachment theory posits that healthy child development occurs when a child is “securely attached” to its caregiver. This is achieved by the parent or caregiver providing emotional nourishment, care, kindness and attentiveness to the child. Insecure attachment occurs when the parent or caregiver is cold, distant, abusive or neglectful.
Much like the rhesus monkeys, you can feed a human baby all they need, give them all the dietary nourishment they require, but if you don’t provide them with warmth and love, they’re not going to form an attachment to you.
What can we learn from Punch?
The zoo was not conducting an experiment, but Punch’s situation inadvertently reflects the controlled experiment Harlow did. So, the experimental setup was mimicked in a more natural setting, but the outcomes look very similar.
Just as Harlow’s monkeys favoured their terry towelling mother, Punch has formed an attachment to his IKEA plushie companion.
Now, what we don’t have with the zoo situation is the comparison to a harsh, physically nourishing option provided.
But clearly, that’s not what the monkey was looking for. He wanted a comforting and soft safe place, and that’s what the doll provided.
Were Harlow’s experiments ethical?
Most of the world now recognises primates as having rights that are, in some cases, equivalent to human rights.
Today, we would see Harlow’s experiments as a cruel and unkind thing to do. You wouldn’t take a human baby away from its mother and do this experiment, so we shouldn’t do this to primates.
It’s interesting to see people so fascinated by this parallel to an experiment conducted more than 70 years ago.
Punch the monkey is not just the internet’s latest animal celebrity – he’s a reminder of the importance of emotional nourishment.
We all need soft spaces. We all need safe spaces. Love and warmth are far more important for our wellbeing and functioning than physical nourishment alone.
Mark Nielsen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Charles Conteh, Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Department of Political Science, Brock University
The United States Supreme Court recently struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed under the country’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court stated that the law, intended for national emergencies, does not grant the government the authority to impose tariffs.
In early 2025, Trump invoked the act to impose tariffs on Canada, along with Mexico and China, claiming the countries failed to stop illicit drug trafficking into the United States.
The ruling is the latest episode in a political dust-up between Canada and its neighbour to the south which recently involved the Gordie Howe International Bridge linking Ontario and Michigan.
More than steel or stone, the bridge is a symbol of a shared destiny that both respects and transcends differences. Despite their historical, institutional and political differences, Canada and the United States have bonded economically as neighbours, generating shared prosperity over the past two centuries.
In 2023, I wrote a book chapter Canada and the United States: A Symbiotic Relationship or Complex Entanglement? In that chapter, I posed a question: What if the United States becomes more aggressive and even less open to working co-operatively with Canada? To answer that question, Canada can draw lessons from its centuries-long coexistence with an often erratic neighbour to successfully navigate the economic volatility of the present era.
While the recent Supreme Court ruling presents a setback for Trump, it is unlikely to stop him from using U.S. economic and military might as leverage against Canada and other countries. As Canada navigates this belligerent U.S. government, a lingering question is whether this history of interwoven reciprocity is deteriorating into a complex entanglement of vulnerability.
Two neighbours, different worlds
In the book chapter, I describe the Canada-U.S. relationship as a complex picture of deep interdependence, marked by significant power imbalances, and the creative ways Canada has learned to adapt and prosper.
The economic and political interests of the two countries have diverged and converged in undulating waves over the past 200 years. The two economies are inextricably intertwined across a range of sectors, from natural resources and agriculture to advanced manufacturing. Around 70 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., and the share of Canada’s merchandise imports from south of the border was around 59 per cent in 2025.
But for Canada, the relationship is more than just economic interdependence. The U.S. has a population of about 342 million and a gross domestic product about 10 times larger than Canada’s. That sets the stage for an asymmetrical relationship whose threads are woven into the fabric of trade and geopolitics.
For Canada, this can sometimes feel like vulnerability. And that vulnerability is increasingly being exploited by the U.S., creating a general feeling of existential crisis and entrapment.
Nevertheless, Canada can draw from its centuries-long experience to navigate the current headwinds. While the smaller of the two neighbours, it is not entirely dependent on the U.S. for influencing global events or harnessing international opportunities.
Canada has been, and still is, an influential power on the international stage. As a G7 nation, Canada is one of the key pillars in the scaffolding of the global economy. This global standing and international influence give it some room to manoeuvre.
Navigating an existential crossroads
First, in the international arena, Canada must diversify economically and geopolitically to build strategic resilience. Prime Minister Mark Carney is already moving on this front by agreeing to ease mutual tariffs with China. With negotiations to renew the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) slated for this year, a diversified trading economy will give Canada much greater leverage to navigate the vulnerabilities of asymmetry.
Second, Canada should draw from its record of championing a rules-based order. In recent years, the country has had to skilfully navigate the crossroads of projecting and defending its global and liberal-democratic values during periods of U.S. flirtations with populism, isolationism and anti-international rhetoric. As a middle power, it derives its strength from the rule of law and by presenting a united front with like-minded nations. A wider set of partners means more buffers against trade policy whiplashes and geopolitical shocks from the U.S.
Third, domestically, loosening inter-provincial trade flows, updating anachronistic regulatory frameworks and pursuing digital data sovereignty strategies should be high priorities to fire the full engine of the economy.
Similarly, as I’ve previously argued, Canada should use its comparative advantages in natural resources to create a strong, well-connected critical minerals supply chain. This would give it significant strategic leverage in the global economy as the world shifts to electrification and renewable energy.
Over the past two centuries, Canada has mastered the complex dance of asymmetry. However, the current crisis takes on an existential proportion that will require new agility, courage and decisiveness. It is an inflection point that will mark a consequential shift for the next generation.
Canada’s nimbleness and agility in navigating this political moment could be an model for other countries that must manoeuvre a world where the old rules no longer apply. It can serve as an example for small and middle powers who must navigate a world where great powers are increasingly belligerent.
Charles Conteh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Francisco Pérez Fernández, Profesor de Psicología Criminal, Psicología de la Delincuencia, Historia de la Psicología, Perfilación e investigador psicosocial. Experto en historia de la novela gráfica., Universidad Camilo José Cela
El ejército mexicano patrulla por una carretera tras el operativo que acabó con la vida de _El Mencho_.RTVE
El operativo que acabó con la vida del líder del Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, ha desatado una ola de violencia sin precedentes en las calles de México. Esta respuesta, organizada y repartida por diferentes estados, revela que la hidra del crimen organizado está lejos de extinguirse. Más bien, la muerte de El Mencho encaja en un patrón ya conocido del crimen organizado mexicano: la eliminación del líder no destruye la estructura existente, muy consolidada sociocultural, económica y políticamente, sino que previsiblemente catalizará hacia transformaciones internas y reacomodos violentos.
Los orígenes del cártel más poderoso
El Cártel Jalisco Nueva generación (CJNG) surgió alrededor de 2009, cuando Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes (1966-2026), natural de la comunidad de Naranjo de Chila (Aguililla, Michoacán) y más conocido por su alias de El Mencho, consolidó en una única organización criminal a un grupo escindido del Cártel de Sinaloa y a las células de Los Matazetas que él mismo controlaba.
Con anterioridad, Oseguera había pertenecido al cartel del Milenio, encabezado por Nacho Coronel Villarreal (1954-2010) y dedicado al tráfico de metanfetamina. Esta organización trabajaba en los territorios de Jalisco, Michoacán y Colima y tuvo cierta relevancia a inicios de los 2000. Pero cayó en declive cuando Coronel murió en un operativo en Zapopan, Jalisco, en 2010, posiblemente traicionado por los hermanos Beltrán Leyva, del cartel de Sinaloa.
Lo cierto es que el CJNG adquirió notoriedad rápidamente por su violencia extrema. Ejemplo de ello fue la macabra exhibición de 35 cadáveres –23 hombres y 12 mujeres– en Boca del Río (Veracruz) en 2011, acto que motivó que esta organización criminal se hiciera un hueco en el panorama nacional mexicano. El hecho es que, desde entonces, el grupo consolidó su presencia en al menos 25 estados del país, operando siempre mediante células regionales autónomas de alta capacidad paramilitar, con cadenas de comunicación funcionales y protocolos de respuesta rápida muy estructurados y eficientes que, por lo que parece, la muerte de El Mencho no ha desarticulado.
Estructura, capacidades y actividad
El CJNG se había venido empoderando a lo largo de la última década al no encontrar contrapesos, pues las guerras intestinas del Cartel de Sinaloa habían debilitado su capacidad de respuesta. Su crecimiento fue rápido y no tardó en contar con capacidad de violencia coordinada para la realización de narcobloqueos, quema de vehículos, cierres de carreteras y ataques simultáneos.
De la misma manera, su capacidad militar es alta. Posee y maneja armamento pesado, e incluso vehículos blindados. Ha venido sosteniendo una narrativa de desafío permanente al Estado mediante la difusión de imágenes de las maniobras de sus sicarios. Estas capacidades, así como su papel clave en el tráfico de drogas sintéticas, violencia transnacional y desestabilización regional, motivaron que Estados Unidos clasificara al CJNG como Organización Terrorista Extranjera (FTO) y Terrorista Global Especialmente Designado (SDGT).
La DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), por su parte, había puesto a la cabeza de Oseguera un precio nada desdeñable de 15 millones de dólares.
El CJNG, debido a sus fuentes de financiación diversas, ha venido operando como una empresa criminal multifacética vinculada al narcotráfico (fentanilo, metanfetamina, cocaína y heroína) hacia Estados Unidos, siendo un actor central en la crisis de opioides estadounidense, que ha podido costar la vida ya a más de 500 000 personas y actualmente se encuentra en su tercera oleada.
Otros delitos asociados al CJNG son extorsión, robo y contrabando de combustible, tráfico de personas, lavado de dinero y control territorial mediante violencia extrema. Esto explica que la organización se hubiera convertido en un punto crítico en la agenda de seguridad de México y Estados Unidos. De manera muy especial en lo tocante al control del tráfico de fentanilo, la coordinación de operaciones militares binacionales y las políticas de seguridad del Gobierno mexicano.
Lo cierto es que desde que Donald Trump amenazara en marzo de 2025 con la imposición de aranceles a México, el gabinete presidido por Claudia Sheinbaum, en una política que claramente pretendía apaciguar al gobierno estadounidense y dirigirlo hacia una negociación económica sosegada, recrudeció su lucha contra el narco.
Sin embargo, pese a haber entregado a su vecino del norte a 29 de los narcos más buscados y establecido un control de fronteras mucho más riguroso, Sheinbaum no parece haber logrado avanzar de forma significativa en su objetivo. Consecuentemente, cabe enmarcar movimientos, como la presente operación contra el CJNG, en el mismo contexto de acercamiento y normalización de relaciones con el gabinete Trump.
La muerte de El Mencho: hechos y expectativas
El 23 de febrero de 2026, el ejército mexicano, en una operación informada y coordinada con la inteligencia estadounidense, que llevaba años realizando seguimientos satelitales y financieros, ha abatido a Nemesio Oseguera durante un operativo en Tapalpa, Jalisco. Este se saldó con 25 militares muertos y otros 12 componentes de la organización criminal fallecidos.
La reacción de los miembros del cártel ha sido extremadamente violenta, incluyendo bloqueos de vías públicas, incendio de vehículos, ataques indiscriminados y violencia coordinada en múltiples estados. Esto ha venido a confirmar, como ya se temía, su estructura celular autónoma y su alta capacidad para operar, incluso sin instrucciones procedentes de una autoridad central. La zona metropolitana de Guadalajara ha vivido alguna de las jornadas más violentas de los últimos años.
El hecho es que la muerte del líder Oseguera y la elevada capacidad operativa de las células que constituyen el CJNG abren escenarios inciertos con respecto a las posibles luchas internas por la sucesión. El Mencho no parece haber dejado una línea sucesoria establecida. Esto implica una reconfiguración territorial de la organización y una posible y previsible escalada de violencia en regiones donde el cártel mantiene presencia activa.
Dos precedentes: El Mayo y El Chapo
En términos de historia del crimen organizado, la muerte de Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes puede interpretarse como un acontecimiento central comparable a la caída del elusivo Ismael El Mayo Zambada (nacido en 1948), actualmente encerrado en el Centro Metropolitano de Detención de Brooklyn a la espera de una sentencia firme de la justicia estadounidense, o de Joaquín El Chapo Guzmán (nacido en 1957), en la actualidad cumpliendo una cadena perpetua también en Estados Unidos.
Históricamente, ha venido ocurriendo que la caída de los grandes capos no ha significado el desmantelamiento de sus organizaciones, sino, a menudo, incluso su dispersión y complicación. La estructura celular del CJNG, alejada del modelo piramidal clásico, parece apuntar en esta dirección. Por su alto grado de penetración social y diversificación económica, el CJNG ha llegado a convertirse en una organización cuya presencia permea aspectos cotidianos, económicos y sociales de amplias regiones.
Tras el operativo que ha dado muerte a El Mencho, el cártel no solo ha reaccionado con rapidez, sino que lo ha hecho con una violencia coordinada y de alcance multimodal en varios estados del país. Una respuesta que revela la presencia de estructuras regionales autónomas capaces de operar sin instrucciones centrales, con protocolos de reacción preestablecidos que explican la simultaneidad de las acciones y, claro está, con cadenas de comunicación funcionales y eficaces incluso tras la muerte del líder.
Sin embargo, también parece cierto que las caídas sucesivas de El Chapo, El Mayo y ahora El Mencho podrían sugerir un avance coyuntural –posiblemente no decisivo– del Estado frente a las viejas estructuras del narcotráfico, quizá demasiado acomodadas a un estado de la cuestión que parece haber venido transformándose a lo largo de los últimos diez años.
Narcopoder de base con una raíz social
En efecto, la existencia de un nuevo modelo de cooperación en materia militar y de inteligencia entre México y Estados Unidos, centrado en golpes quirúrgicos más que en una guerra abierta y la implementación de una vigilancia reforzada, contrasta con épocas anteriores y da pie a una reevaluación de la situación por parte de los carteles. Con todo, y en tanto que estructuras psicosociales y culturales fuertemente ancladas entre las clases más desfavorecidas y marginales de la población mexicana, esta reconfiguración de las políticas criminales no eliminará el poder de base de las organizaciones criminales, sino que provocará, a buen seguro, su reconfiguración estructural.
Parece claro, de hecho, que la nueva cooperación abierta entre México y Estados Unidos ha motivado que los grandes capos ya no puedan refugiarse en las mismas formas de protección política o territorial de antaño. Pero, al mismo tiempo, el Estado captura o elimina a los líderes sin lograr desmontar las redes económicas, armadas y territoriales del crimen organizado, con lo cual se llega a una curiosa situación de empate estratégico.
Este hecho parece indicar que la violencia no tenderá a disminuir, sino que se transformará, se fragmentará y se redistribuirá. El caso del CJNG ilustra esto con claridad: la persistencia del cartel, incluso tras la desaparición de su líder histórico, pone en evidencia que la impunidad no ha desaparecido, sino que tiende a adoptar nuevas formas.
Muere el símbolo, vive el sistema
La historia de la criminalidad organizada y su implantación sociocultural muestran que la muerte de las figuras criminales descollantes, como El Mencho en este caso, no implica necesariamente el fin del poder y la capacidad de las organizaciones que estas dirigían.
Y ello porque dicho poder no depende exclusivamente de un individuo, sino que se cimenta en estructuras económicas sólidas –muchas de ellas insertas en mercados legales e ilegales globales–, se sostiene por la capacidad paramilitar y de control territorial de células o nodos regionales, y se legitima (o normaliza) socialmente en regiones donde el Estado, por los motivos que fuere, es débil, corrupto, inoperante o simplemente ausente. Así pues, lo que muere es la figura simbólica, el póster que idolatra el imaginario popular, pero no el sistema que la sostiene.
Cabe deducir de todo ello que más que hacia un final del narco mexicano tal y como lo conocemos, los indicios parecen apuntar hacia una atomización y diversificación del modelo.
La lucha por el liderazgo traerá más violencia
La lucha por el liderazgo traerá más violencia. Primeramente, porque las luchas internas que se avecinan provocarán fracturas en el CJNG y disputas por el control de territorios estratégicos. En segundo lugar, porque es muy probable una escalada de violencia territorial mediante la cual las células autónomas podrían volverse más competitivas entre sí y más agresivas frente a rivales externos. En tercer lugar, porque el debilitamiento de la organización dominante puede observarse como una oportunidad para otros carteles, de suerte que la fragmentación del CJNG podría abrir espacios a grupos como el cartel de Sinaloa u otras organizaciones locales más pequeñas. Y en cuarto lugar, porque se producirá un reacomodo político y regional motivado por el hecho de que el CJNG mantiene relaciones y redes profundas en estados como Jalisco, Michoacán o Nayarit. Esto significa que su reconfiguración afectará también y de manera muy previsible a las dinámicas políticas y económicas locales.
La muerte de El Mencho, por lo tanto, no marca el fin de una forma de poder, sino que implica el cierre de un capítulo dentro de un fenómeno más amplio: la persistencia del crimen organizado como estructura social, cultural, económica y territorial en México. En todo caso, si algo revela la caída del líder es el agotamiento del viejo modelo del “gran capo”, pero no tanto de la estructura criminal-institucional en sí misma.
Lo que emerge, pues, es un escenario más fragmentado, impredecible y potencialmente más violento por disputado. No estamos ante un final, sino en un entreacto cuyo desenlace tendrá mucho que ver con la potencial capacidad adaptativa de los cárteles.
Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.
Donald Trump da un discurso durante la primera cumbre de la Junta de Paz, celebrada el 19 de febrero en Washington.Casa Blanca
Rodeada por cierta expectativa y confusión se produjo el pasado 19 de febrero de en Washington la inauguración de la Junta de Paz. El motivo de esta confusión: las dudas sobre su encaje legal con Naciones Unidas y los límites de sus competencias.
La Junta de Paz actúa a toda rapidez aprovechando la incertidumbre jurídica que rodea su creación y objetivos. Se trata de un órgano administrativo de carácter transitorio amparado por la Resolución 2803 del CS de Naciones Unidas aprobada el pasado 17 de noviembre de 2025. De hecho, tiene como fecha de caducidad el 31 de diciembre de 2027.
En enero de 2026, el texto de la Carta de la Junta de Paz fue enviada a 60 Estados, algunos de los cuales manifestaron en la última Cumbre de Davos (celebrada entre el 19 y 23 de enero) su intención de unirse a la nueva organización internacional.
Precisamente el motivo alegado por la mayoría de los países para no hacerlo es que la Carta entra en conflicto con las obligaciones asumidas por los Estados al crear las Naciones Unidas y con los poderes y competencias atribuidos a esta organización. Es más, si bien la autorización para crear la Junta de Paz estaba confinada estrictamente a la cuestión de Gaza, el nuevo organismo internacional asume competencias universales de consolidación de paz sin límite geográfico alguno.
Además, mientras que el Consejo de Seguridad fecha su terminación al acabar 2027, el estatuto de la Carta afirma que la Junta se disolverá cuando quiera su presidente.
Pago en metálico por membresía permanente
Una lectura atenta al tratado que crea la Carta deja entrever una extraña combinación de aspectos jurídicos vinculados a las organizaciones internacionales junto con otros que son típicos de la gobernanza de las empresas privadas.
Si por un lado se afirma que la Junta de Paz es una organización internacional con personalidad jurídica regida por el derecho internacional, por otro se otorgan poderes vitalicios a individuos, no a Estados miembros, que son exorbitantes –presidencia vitalicia, designación a dedo del sucesor, pago en metálico por la condición de miembro permanente, poder personal de arbitraje, veto y poder de disolución…– que solo pueden concebirse en el mundo mercantil privado.
Obviamente, esto sería completamente ilegal, ya que la Carta de San Francisco (1945) es un tratado internacional especial que tiene preeminencia sobre cualquier otro y crea una organización única de tipo universal y fines generales que no admite subordinación.
Escenificación y mensaje performativo
Aprovechando esta confusión entre el mandato dado por Naciones Unidas y los fines declarados de la Junta de Paz, se reunieron en Washington 26 Estados miembros y dos decenas de países y la UE en calidad de observadores. Es evidente que muchos Estados no querían faltar porque se iba a tratar del futuro de Gaza y Palestina.
Además, asistieron el presidente del Banco Mundial, Ajay Banga; el de la FIFA, Gianni Infantino; el general estadounidense Jasper Jeffers, a quien la Junta ha encargado dirigir la Fuerza Internacional de Estabilización (ISF); y el embajador de Estados Unidos ante Naciones Unidas, Michael Waltz.
A título individual se dieron cita Tony Blair, como exrepresentante político, y Ali Saath, un exministro palestino elegido para liderar el órgano tecnocrático en Gaza bajo las órdenes de la Junta.
Ausentes estaban los Estados que han declinado participar en la Junta –como Francia o España– y otros que no han contestado y presumiblemente no participarán –Rusia y China–. No fueron invitados los representantes palestinos y, por supuesto, no había autoridades de Naciones Unidas.
Como habrá adivinado el lector o la lectora, este auditorio era abrumadoramente masculino, no habiendo ni una sola mujer en la zona de presidencia y muy pocas en el conjunto de la sala. La voz de una mujer, eso sí, se escuchaba para presentar a los invitados y cederles el turno de palabra.
La imagen de empresarios y representantes políticos actuando como en un consejo de administración, con intervenciones ordenadas y sin debate, con palabras caballerosas y apretones de manos, destilaba un olor rancio a masculinidad y una monotonía del lenguaje de los negocios que todos parecían compartir –prosperidad, oportunidades, inversiones, rentabilidad–.
De forma triunfalista se celebró el fin del conflicto en Gaza, como si ya estuviera resuelto, afirmando que es un éxito indiscutible de Trump, y dándose el dato de que el número de muertos se ha reducido al 1 % desde el alto el fuego de octubre. Se ocultaba así que Israel ha matado al menos unas 600 personas en Gaza desde entonces sin contar las víctimas cotidianas que dejan los ataques de colonos y militares en Cisjordania.
Un resort turístico difuso
El capital público (unos 10 000 millones de dólares anunciados por EE. UU y otros 7 000 millones por otros países de la Junta) más el capital privado movilizado a través del Banco Mundial convertirán a Gaza en un resort turístico, rentabilizando su “valiosísima costa de playa”. Ni una sola palabra sobre cómo se hará esto, cómo antes se tendrán que retirar las toneladas de escombros –lo que llevará años–, cómo se descontaminará el suelo agrícola o el agua subterránea, quiénes construirán esas viviendas y torres de apartamentos o cómo se conectará con el mundo exterior para la llegada de visitantes. De la soberanía de Gaza ninguna mención.
El discurso performativo logró en parte alejar de la mente del espectador la responsabilidad de Israel (cuestiones como quién debería pagar la reconstrucción de Gaza, qué ocurre con las ordenes de detención por crímenes de guerra y con la causa que tiene abierta por genocidio…) o la complicidad de EE. UU. en la destrucción de Gaza –primer suministrador de bombas y armamento–. Por un momento ofuscó, pero no derribó la idea más poderosa de que Gaza es parte irrenunciable de Palestina y que ningún resort conseguirá eliminar su identidad, ni sus derechos inalienables.
Rafael Bustos García de Castro no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Joceline Andersen, Assistant Teaching Professor in Communication and English, Thompson Rivers University
In the lead-up to Oscar season, Josh Safdie, the director of Marty Supreme, has been elaborating on the many cameos in his film that build on real-world associations to create a rich cast of characters.
In Marty Supreme, Timothée Chalamet stars as an ambitious table tennis champion running away from his life as a shoe salesman in a largely Jewish slice of 1950s New York. Alongside this star are many other recognizable faces playing cameos.
Finding a famous face in an unexpected place is strangely thrilling. As some of my research has examined, this recognition is the allure behind cameos — small roles where famous and celebrated people play versions of themselves on screen. Cameos are full of contradictions: audiences are taken aback by famous people appearing in front of the camera. They proudly pick out celebrity faces in a crowd.
Writer Pico Iyer’s 2019 Ted Talk: What ping pong taught me about life.
While classic cameos like Jerry Lewis’s appearance in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) were filmed as cutaways that made for a flexible shooting schedule and assembly-line production, Iyer’s role involved shooting on two continents.
Safdie includes Iyer as a fastidious table tennis official, even though Iyer’s talk argues that ping pong transcends competition as the ultimate model for good diplomacy. Iyer’s TED Talk also sketches out the source material for an unusual minor character arc in Marty Supreme. Between the cameo, the New York Times article and the TED Talk, Safdie creates a maze for the viewer to follow outside of the viewing experience.
Stunt casting
Safdie is no stranger to stunt casting. He and his brother’s 2019 drama Uncut Gems starred Adam Sandler as a jeweller, and featured cameos from non-actors such as musical star the Weeknd and former NBA player Kevin Garnett.
In Marty Supreme, many cameos highlight local colour. John Catsimatidis, New York grocery tycoon and former mayoral candidate, plays a well-to-do speculator bankrolling a line of table tennis balls, the Marty Supreme, that gives the film its title.
Kevin O’Leary
Kevin O’Leary, the wealthy Canadian reality-TV investor angel of Dragon’s Den and Shark Tank fame, appears in a supporting role as the sadistic wealthy husband of a faded movie star played by Gwyneth Paltrow. Surrounded by an entourage of sycophants, he bribes Marty to throw a match to the reigning champion as part of a promotional event for his company.
As O’Leary expressed in Vanity Fair, Safdie was looking for an “asshole,” and he knows how to play that.
As a supporting actor who plays a pivotal plot role in Marty’s return to grace, O’Leary is hardly a cameoist. And yet, in his first acting role, O’Leary’s persona never fully disappears into the character of the cutthroat mid-century businessman.
Marty Supreme could be an episode of Dragon’s Den, with O’Leary sizing up another hopeful contestant for humiliation or a dream come true. The audience sketches out much of O’Leary’s performance from our own memories of similar viewing experiences, just like we do for other celebrities and movie stars.
Casting against type
After Kevin O’Leary’s appearance, the audience’s second cry of recognition at my local screen was for Marty’s mom: Fran Drescher, best known as the brash, colourful New Yorker from the 1990s sitcom The Nanny. During the filming of Marty Supreme, Drescher was the president of SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents screen actors in the U.S.
Safdie’s cameos were to feature people with what Drescher called the right “background”: New Yorkers, many of them Jewish, with local accents. According to Drescher, Safdie intrigued her with a promise to showcase her depth demonstrated during calls explaining labour negotiations. Like Iyer, Drescher was cast in this cameo against the type of her superficial sitcom character.
Labour, cultural contexts also shape cameos
Many cameos of the 1920s and 1930s relied on labour conditions where stars and former stars signed to restrictive contracts could be pulled out of the studio canteen to appear as little more than extras.
This wasn’t because extras were in short supply: according to Kate Fortmueller, who has researched film and TV labour histories, almost three per cent of Los Angeles residents in the 1920s were registered as extras. The unionization of movie actors emerged from a desire to give order to the wannabe actors flooding Hollywood.
Comparable concerns were behind the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike — a key issue was compensation for actors as streaming media changed where audiences watch screens and convenient AI technology threatens real performers.
Marty Supreme commits to depicting the real New York through cameos that recreate the accents, dialects and unfiltered faces of famous New York actors, and these resonances beyond the screen are part of the film’s allure.
Joceline Andersen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Alexandra R Harrington, Visiting Scholar, McGill University Faculty of Law, Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, McGill University
The United States federal government recently revoked a landmark scientific ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency that stated greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. U.S. President Donald Trump said the ruling was a “disasterous” policy that “severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers.”
The revocation is the latest move by a U.S. administration that has framed action to tackle climate change as hampering the U.S. economy. In this context, trade has become a buzzword over the past year. With the focus on tariffs, it is easy to overlook the impacts of U.S. trade policies on the environment and the organizations tasked with bridging the two.
My areas of research focus on international law, specifically environmental law and the intersections between trade and international organizations.
The U.S. withdrawal highlights the importance of these issues at the regional level. It also provides an opportunity for other countries in the Americas to take action on climate change without the United States.
The Commission on Environmental Cooperation is charged with overseeing this agreement, while SEM is the process for dealing with claims that Canada, Mexico or the U.S. are not living up to their environmental commitments.
That process can lead to the creation of a “factual record”; an investigative report detailing the commission’s findings. Although not a legal decision, the factual record is a powerful evidentiary and fact-finding tool to generate reforms.
The SEM model was replicated in U.S. trade agreements with Central American states, Colombia, Panama and Peru. In each of these agreements, however, the U.S. was exempted from SEM jurisdiction because it was already under the jurisdiction of CUSMA.
Given the U.S. decision not to provide the core funding needed for these entities to function, it would be possible for the Central American states, as well as Colombia, Panama and Peru, to enter into a separate agreement regarding SEMs. The same would be true for Canada and Mexico under CUSMA.
A new generation of environmental accountability
The U.S. was a driving influence in the creation of the SEM process. And the U.S. retreat could be accepted as a way to end systems that have brought significant issues in national enforcement of environment law to light.
Examples include the failure to properly monitor implementation of environmental laws and standards, ranging from those intended to protect communities living near pollution discharge points to those intended to protect species on the edge of extinction.
Other countries in the Americas now have an opportunity to create a larger environmental oversight mechanism. This would demonstrate their ability to step into the governance gap left by the U.S. and generate stronger regional alliances. This would not only benefit the Americas. It would also provide a model for other international organizations as they face the loss of a powerful member state.
This alternative would entail creating a new SEM process, along with an equivalent to the Commission on Environmental Cooperation to oversee it, linking all members of the impacted agreements and any other interested countries in the Americas. The most comprehensive way to do this would be to negotiate a new multilateral agreement similar to current regional agreements but without the emphasis being on trade.
Similar to the current SEM process, individuals and groups could make submissions claiming that a member state is failing to fulfill its environmental obligations. Once a submission is received, the SEM unit would determine whether it meets basic requirements. If so, the submission would move on and, ultimately, a factual record could be developed.
This alternative framework would demonstrate the collective commitment of countries across the Americas to environmental protection. It would reflect the reality that the Americas face significant shared environmental threats that are also increasingly threats to national security and economic interests.
Such an agreement could mainstream the SEM process, building on provisions established in NAFTA, NAAEC and CUSMA. Existing regional offices could be maintained to ensure strong connections on the ground, and the procedures used could largely be unchanged.
At a time when many countries seem to be focusing on narrow self-interest and military spending rather than the environment, this is a challenging proposition.
However, integrating the SEM process into a new, broader, collective effort would allow American countries to assert hemispheric leadership without having to reinvent the wheel. It would also allow citizens the continued ability to bring claims and to have some accountability.
As the U.S. government withdraws from its international obligations, reconceiving international organizations that are under existential threat is now a necessity. Reconfiguring SEMs throughout the Americas would serve as a model for other organizations and as a way of shifting international organizations to be less dependent on any one state.
Alexandra R Harrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Muhammad Ilyas Nadeem, PhD Candidate in Obesity & Diabetes | Public Scholar (2024-2025), Concordia University
Canada is recognized globally for its world-leading obesity care guidelines — yet Canadians continue to struggle to access the very treatment plans we’ve developed. Meanwhile, the same model of care is now the one the World Health Organization (WHO) is urging other countries to adopt.
WHO’s stance mirrors the Canadian framework laid out in 2020 clinical guidelines: obesity is a chronic, relapsing disease that requires comprehensive, lifelong care — the kind that includes timely diagnosis, trained providers, co-ordination among the various health professionals involved, mental-health support, and — when appropriate — pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery.
When will Canadians see this research put into practice?
Either directly or indirectly, all Canadians are affected by obesity. Obesity remains largely framed as a willpower problem solvable through lifestyle change alone, despite decades of evidence showing it is a complex chronic disease shaped both by biology and environment. It is linked to more than 200 health problems worldwide and contributes to more than 3.7 million deaths annually.
Most health-care systems, including Canada’s, still rely on fragmented, weight-centric guidelines rather than holistic, chronic disease approaches. Even clinicians and clinics that want to follow these evidence-based models often find themselves constrained by limited resources, training, inconsistent insurance coverage and a system that still doesn’t put comprehensive obesity care at the forefront.
Canada has invested millions of dollars in obesity research, leading to the development of forward-thinking, science-backed approaches to obesity care, but system-wide implementation remains painfully slow.
The Canadian paradox: world-class guidance, patchy access
Here’s the bright side: Canada has quietly become an unexpected leader in global obesity care guidelines. Over the past five years, Canadian clinicians, researchers and people with lived experience have helped rewrite the international rulebook for treating obesity.
In 2025, two major updates pushed the model further. A pediatric guideline in Canadian Medical Association Journal emphasized multicomponent, family-centred support that addresses mental health, quality of life and cardiometabolic risk, while considering medications or surgery for selected adolescents through shared decision-making.
An adult pharmacotherapy update called for long-term, individualized use of modern anti-obesity medicines — including semaglutide and tirzepatide — and urged clinicians to focus on abdominal obesity and complications rather than BMI alone.
Ultimately, before we can improve the lives of our people, we need to improve the system that is supposed to care for them.
The first crucial step would be for more provinces to follow suit with Alberta to recognize obesity as a chronic disease nationwide. Recognition is the gateway to coverage and comprehensive care.
A co-ordinated federal-provincial-territorial framework implementing our guidelines on behavioural/psychological support, pharmacotherapy and surgery should be applied for obesity care in Canada. Make quality of life, mental health, functional capacity and obesity-related complication reduction core performance indicators.
Finally, similar to diabetes care, public and private plans should cover anti-obesity medications where clinically indicated. The absence of coverage continues to hinder access as international guidance embraces modern, chronic-care models for obesity management.
Canada’s impact on modern obesity care is commendable, with countries like Ireland and Chile adapting our model. WHO now supports this same chronic-care approach with its stance on GLP-1 medicines. But if Canada’s own guidelines are not practically applied within our health-care systems, many lives will continue to be at stake, and obesity numbers will continue to climb, as they have for the last several decades.
Muhammad Ilyas Nadeem receives funding from Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ)-Santé.
Jessica Murphy has received funding from Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ)-Santé.
Sylvia Santosa receives funding from CIHR, NSERC, MITACS, CFDR.
Cristina Sanza does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
