Analysis – Page 1124 – MIL Submissions Engine

September 17, 2025

Vaccine death and side effects database relies on unverified reports – and Trump officials and right-wing media are applying it out of context

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Matt Motta, Assistant Professor of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University

Government approval of COVID-19 vaccines determines their availability to populations vulnerable to infection, such as children. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Trump officials intend to link 25 child deaths to COVID-19 vaccines, according to reporting from The Washington Post. These findings will reportedly be discussed during the Sept. 18-19, 2025, meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, with implications for who may be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines in the future.

These death reports are reportedly derived from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, a database co-managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. It was originally established in 1990 to detect possible safety problems with vaccines. Unfortunately, the anti-vaccine movement has used this database to spread misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist, has promulgated this misinformation through the Make America Healthy Again movement in efforts to limit access to COVID-19 vaccines.

VAERS is ripe for exploitation because it relies on unverified self-reports of side effects. Anyone who received a vaccine can submit a report. And because this information is publicly available, misinterpretations of its data has been used to amplify COVID-19 misinformation through dubious social media channels and mass media, including one of the most popular shows on cable news.

We are political scientists who study the social, political and psychological underpinnings of vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. In our research, we argue that VAERS, despite its limitations, can teach us about more than just vaccine side effects – it can also offer powerful new insights into the origins of vaccine hesitancy in the U.S.

What the side effects database was designed to do

Medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services are well aware of VAERS’ limitations. Rather than taking each individual report at face value, regulators remove clearly fraudulent reports. Demonstrating this, anesthesiologist and autism advocate James Laidler once used the system to report that a vaccine turned him into the “Incredible Hulk,” which was removed only after he agreed to have the data deleted.

Regulators also look for reporting patterns that can be corroborated by additional evidence. For example, reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be more common in people over 50 than in younger adults. This can help researchers identify potential adverse events that were not detected in clinical trials.

Because VAERS claims are self-reported, they tell us something about what ordinary people, as opposed to doctors and medical researchers, think about vaccine safety. In other words, people who feel that a vaccine is responsible for a side effect they might be experiencing can log that concern with the federal government, whether or not those claims would stand scrutiny in rigorous clinical testing.

Red breaking news banner behind two vials of COVID-19 vaccine. — Media stories on vaccine side effects can influence public sentiments toward vaccination.
MikeMareen/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Consequently, VAERS reports might not only document people’s negative experiences with vaccination but also their attitudes toward vaccination. People may be more likely to report side effects, for example, in response to media stories about vaccine safety concerns. If reports to VAERS increase following these stories, then the reporting system may be functioning similarly to a public opinion poll. It could reflect, in part, public attentiveness to and concern about potential side effects.

To see whether this is the case, we examined a well-known case of vaccine misinformation: the since-retracted paper that claimed a link between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) to childhood autism.

Is a fraudulent study responsible for MMR vaccine skepticism?

In 1998, former physician Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues published a since-retracted paper claiming that the MMR vaccine could cause autism in children. Although the study was rife with unreported conflicting interests and data manipulation, it nevertheless garnered significant media attention in the late 1990s. Some journalists and researchers have since argued that the paper played a major role in inspiring MMR vaccine hesitancy.

While this is plausible, there hasn’t been evidence to support the argument. Virtually no opinion polling about MMR existed prior to the publication of Wakefield’s paper. Consequently, researchers have not been able to directly observe whether the study influenced how Americans think about the MMR vaccine.

VAERS data, however, could offer some clues. In our study, we examined whether the number of VAERS reports following publication of Wakefield’s paper was significantly greater than expected based on typical report numbers prior to its publication. We found that the number of adverse event reports for MMR increased by about 70 reports per month following publication of the paper. This is significantly greater than what we would expect by chance based on previous reporting frequencies. Notably, we did not find a similar effect for other childhood vaccines in the same time period. This further underscores the power this since-debunked study has had in shaping public opinion about the MMR vaccine.

Importantly, we also found that adverse event reporting rates rose in tandem with negative media coverage of the MMR vaccine. Following the publication of Wakefield’s paper, television and print news published significantly more stories about MMR than before the paper was published. These results suggest that Wakefield’s article influenced how much more attentive Americans were about the MMR vaccine.

VAERS: A double-edged sword

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, interest in the side effects reporting system had significantly grown. Google search engine trends suggest that more Americans were looking up VAERS than ever before shortly after emergency use authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. This trend continued to increase until a peak in August 2021.

This search behavior is likely a result of increased media attention to VAERS, particularly by right-leaning news outlets. According to the data from media research platform Media Cloud, there have been 459 stories in mainstream national news outlets, such as CNN or USA Today, mentioning VAERS between December 2020 and mid-August 2021. In right-wing media outlets such as Fox News, The Daily Caller and Breitbart, however, coverage soared to 3,254 stories – over seven times more than mainstream news media.

Consequently, VAERS data could be seen as something of a double-edged sword. On one hand, it has been weaponized by the anti-vaccine movement and political actors on the right to sow doubt and distrust about COVID-19 vaccinations. On the other hand, this data could also tell public health researchers something useful about how American vaccine skepticism might ebb and flow in response to events such as the brief pause in Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine administration or fluctuations in the tone of media coverage about COVID-19 vaccines.

VAERS data may even offer an important advantage over public opinion polls, which, with the exception of weekly vaccine uptake polls, have typically been administered much less frequently. Our research cautions that media attention to discredited vaccine-related claims may undermine public confidence in vaccination.

How to avoid another wave of misinformation

To ensure that VAERS is used properly, journalists and scientific researchers can team up to help the public interpret new findings. Journalists should, in our view, contextualize their coverage within a broader body of scientific evidence. Scientific researchers can aid in this by helping journalists accurately portray studies on vaccine side effects, clearly outlining their methodologies and results in accessible language.

By working together, researchers and journalists can take constructive action to address vaccine hesitancy before it has a chance to germinate.

This an updated version of an article originally published on Aug. 25, 2021.

Matt Motta has received funding from the National Science Foundation.

Dominik Stecuła receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Vaccine death and side effects database relies on unverified reports – and Trump officials and right-wing media are applying it out of context – https://theconversation.com/vaccine-death-and-side-effects-database-relies-on-unverified-reports-and-trump-officials-and-right-wing-media-are-applying-it-out-of-context-265362

September 17, 2025

Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence − what the data shows

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

President Donald Trump is targeting left-wing organizations he incorrectly says promote political violence. Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images

After the Sept. 10, 2025, assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump claimed that radical leftist groups foment political violence in the U.S., and “they should be put in jail.”

“The radical left causes tremendous violence,” he said, asserting that “they seem to do it in a bigger way” than groups on the right.

Top presidential adviser Stephen Miller also weighed in after Kirk’s killing, saying that left-wing political organizations constitute “a vast domestic terror movement.”

“We are going to use every resource we have … throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again,” Miller said.

But policymakers and the public need reliable evidence and actual data to understand the reality of politically motivated violence. From our research on extremism, it’s clear that the president’s and Miller’s assertions about political violence from the left are not based on actual facts.

Based on our own research and a review of related work, we can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.

Trump aide Stephen Miller says the administration will go after ‘a vast domestic terror movement’ on the left.

Political violence rising

The understanding of political violence is complicated by differences in definitions and the recent Department of Justice removal of an important government-sponsored study of domestic terrorists.

Political violence in the U.S. has risen in recent months and takes forms that go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states reported threats against election workers, including social media death threats, intimidation and doxing.

Kirk’s assassination illustrates the growing threat. The man charged with the murder, Tyler Robinson, allegedly planned the attack in writing and online.

This follows other politically motivated killings, including the June assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. and former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband.

These incidents reflect a normalization of political violence. Threats and violence are increasingly treated as acceptable for achieving political goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society.

Defining ‘political violence’

This article relies on some of our research on extremism, other academic research, federal reports, academic datasets and other monitoring to assess what is known about political violence.

Support for political violence in the U.S. is spreading from extremist fringes into the mainstream, making violent actions seem normal. Threats can move from online rhetoric to actual violence, posing serious risks to democratic practices.

But different agencies and researchers use different definitions of political violence, making comparisons difficult.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security define domestic violent extremism as threats involving actual violence. They do not investigate people in the U.S. for constitutionally protected speech, activism or ideological beliefs.

Domestic violent extremism is defined by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as violence or credible threats of violence intended to influence government policy or intimidate civilians for political or ideological purposes. This general framing, which includes diverse activities under a single category, guides investigations and prosecutions.

Datasets compiled by academic researchers use narrower and more operational definitions. The Global Terrorism Database counts incidents that involve intentional violence with political, social or religious motivation.

These differences mean that the same incident may or may not appear in a dataset, depending on the rules applied.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security emphasize that these distinctions are not merely academic. Labeling an event “terrorism” rather than a “hate crime” can change who is responsible for investigating an incident and how many resources they have to investigate. “investigate IT”?

For example, a politically motivated shooting might be coded as terrorism in federal reporting, cataloged as political violence by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, and prosecuted as homicide or a hate crime at the state level.

Patterns in incidents and fatalities

Despite differences in definitions, several consistent patterns emerge from available evidence.

Politically motivated violence is a small fraction of total violent crime, but its impact is magnified by symbolic targets, timing and media coverage.

In the first half of 2025, 35% of violent events tracked by University of Maryland researchers targeted U.S. government personnel or facilities – more than twice the rate in 2024.

Right-wing extremist violence has been deadlier than left-wing violence in recent years.

Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.

Illustrative cases include the 2015 Charleston church shooting, when white supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine Black parishioners; the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were murdered; the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre, in which an anti-immigrant gunman killed 23 people. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an earlier but still notable example, killed 168 in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.

By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents, including those tied to anarchist or environmental movements, have made up about 10& to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities.

Examples include the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front arson and vandalism campaigns in the 1990s and 2000s, which were more likely to target property rather than people.

Violence occurred during Seattle May Day protests in 2016, with anarchist groups and other demonstrators clashing with police. The clashes resulted in multiple injuries and arrests. In 2016, five Dallas police officers were murdered by a heavily armed sniper who was targeting white police officers.

A woman crying at a memorial of many flowers outside a church. — A memorial outside Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C., on June 19, 2015, after a white supremacist killed nine Black parishioners there.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Hard to count

There’s another reason it’s hard to account for and characterize certain kinds of political violence and those who perpetrate it.

The U.S. focuses on prosecuting criminal acts rather than formally designating organizations as terrorist, relying on existing statutes such as conspiracy, weapons violations, RICO provisions and hate crime laws to pursue individuals for specific acts of violence.

Unlike foreign terrorism, the federal government does not have a mechanism to formally charge an individual with domestic terrorism. That makes it difficult to characterize someone as a domestic terrorist.

The State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list applies only to groups outside of the United States. By contrast, U.S. law bars the government from labeling domestic political organizations as terrorist entities because of First Amendment free speech protections.

Rhetoric is not evidence

Without harmonized reporting and uniform definitions, the data will not provide an accurate overview of political violence in the U.S.

But we can make some important conclusions.

Politically motivated violence in the U.S. is rare compared with overall violent crime. Political violence has a disproportionate impact because even rare incidents can amplify fear, influence policy and deepen societal polarization.

Right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal than left-wing violence. The number of extremist groups is substantial and skewed toward the right, although a count of organizations does not necessarily reflect incidents of violence.

High-profile political violence often brings heightened rhetoric and pressure for sweeping responses. Yet the empirical record shows that political violence remains concentrated within specific movements and networks rather than spread evenly across the ideological spectrum. Distinguishing between rhetoric and evidence is essential for democracy.

Trump and members of his administration are threatening to target whole organizations and movements and the people who work in them with aggressive legal measures – to jail them or scrutinize their favorable tax status. The administration’s focus is on left-wing organizations, but research shows that it’s organizations on the right that the government needs to focus on with prevention and investigation.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence − what the data shows – https://theconversation.com/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-more-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-what-the-data-shows-265367

September 17, 2025

Pourquoi il faut lire – ou relire – « Les identités meurtrières » d’Amin Maalouf

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Christian Bergeron, Professeur en sociologie de l’éducation/ Professor of Sociology of Education, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Sommes-nous en train de perdre notre humanité ? L’actualité récente n’a rien de rassurant. Sur les réseaux sociaux se manifeste une véritable jouissance face à la souffrance d’autrui.

On l’a vu avec l’influenceur Pormanove, humilié sous les yeux de milliers d’internautes : « Le créateur de contenu français de 46 ans aurait subi des coups et blessures d’autres instavidéastes (streamers) pendant plusieurs jours » jusqu’à son décès.

On l’a vu encore avec les réjouissances de certaines personnalités québécoises et même d’une professeure de l’Université de Toronto concernant l’assassinat de Charlie Kirk, perçu comme un ennemi à abattre plutôt qu’un humain.

Être étiqueté « fasciste » ou « nazi » suffit, pour certains, à nier toute humanité à autrui et à légitimer la violence la plus extrême. D’ailleurs, le présumé tueur de Charlie Kirk avait inscrit sur l’une des douilles retrouvées : « Hé, fasciste ! Attrape ça ! ».

Ce mécanisme de déshumanisation s’exerce aussi à l’encontre de groupes stigmatisés, comme les personnes « trans » et les personnes « itinérantes », ou même contre les « cyclistes ». Une étude australienne montre en effet que plus de la moitié des automobilistes considèrent les cyclistes comme « moins humains », ce qui accroît l’acceptation d’actes d’agression à leur égard.

Dans tous ces exemples, le même processus est à l’œuvre : déshumaniser l’autre afin de pouvoir justifier le sadisme, la violence et jusqu’à la haine meurtrière.

Cette perte d’humanité s’observe malheureusement lorsque des idéologies sont véhiculées sur la place publique ou sur les réseaux sociaux. Elles ne sont pas toutes également violentes, mais ces mouvances reposent sur un même ressort : la peur de disparaître, d’être menacé, victime, persécuté ou discriminé. L’histoire nous enseigne que ces peurs, réelles ou construites, conduisent trop souvent à des conflits sanguinaires. Les intensités diffèrent, mais l’urgence demeure : rester vigilants.

Je suis chercheur en éducation inclusive et j’étudie la glottophobie au Canada et en France.

J’estime qu’il est aujourd’hui plus que jamais pertinent de lire ou relire Les identités meurtrières d’Amin Maalouf. L’ouvrage éclaire avec force la manière dont la crispation identitaire mène à la déshumanisation de l’autre et ouvre la voie à la justification de violences extrêmes, voire de la mort de ceux que l’on ne perçoit plus comme pleinement humains. Lire Maalouf, c’est rappeler que nos appartenances ne devraient jamais se transformer en identités meurtrières.

Cet article fait partie de notre série Les livres qui comptent, où des experts de différents domaines décortiquent les livres de vulgarisation scientifique les plus discutés.

Les identités exclusives

Publié en 1998, cet essai lucide et précurseur analyse les fractures identitaires engendrées, entre autres, par l’Histoire et la mondialisation. Loin d’abolir les frontières, la mondialisation suscite un besoin accru d’identité. Les conflits religieux, culturels et politiques, l’opposition entre nationalismes et globalismes en témoignent.

L’un des fils conducteurs du livre est la critique des identités exclusives : « À toutes les époques, il s’est trouvé des gens pour considérer qu’il y avait une seule appartenance majeure, tellement supérieure aux autres ». Or, dès qu’une appartenance est menacée, elle peut envahir l’identité entière : « Qu’une seule appartenance soit touchée, et c’est toute la personne qui vibre ».

Ce qui fait qu’une personne devient une cible à abattre, c’est précisément le processus de déshumanisation : lorsque l’on réduit la personne à une seule appartenance : trans, immigrante, blanche, noire, itinérante, chrétienne, musulmane, juive, etc., on efface la complexité de son humanité et on transforme cette appartenance en stigmate. Dans ce cadre, l’autre n’est plus un être pluriel, mais l’incarnation d’un « ennemi » à éliminer.

La langue française au Québec

Le Québec s’est construit dans un rapport constant à son identité : sa place au sein du Canada, la défense de la langue française, ses tensions avec la religion et ses débats sur l’immigration en sont quelques exemples. Cette histoire l’a doté d’une certaine résilience, mais nul endroit, aussi pacifique soit-il, n’est à l’abri de débordements lorsque l’identité collective se perçoit menacée.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

Pour Maalouf, parmi toutes nos appartenances, la langue occupe une place décisive. On peut vivre sans religion, pas sans langue. Préserver les langues menacées est un enjeu civilisationnel.

Le cas du Québec illustre bien cette tension entre défense culturelle légitime et risque d’exclusivisme. Minorité francophone en Amérique du Nord, mais majoritaire sur la plupart de son territoire, le Québec a dû affirmer son identité par des politiques linguistiques et un volontarisme populationnel.

Ce nationalisme a sauvé le français, mais il porte en lui, selon certaines perceptions, le risque signalé par Maalouf : quand une appartenance devient exclusive, elle se ferme. Le défi québécois est donc de protéger sa langue et sa culture tout en assumant la pluralité d’appartenances, dont celle à la culture anglophone.

Assumer ses appartenances multiples

Cela vaut aussi pour les langues autochtones, qu’il convient de défendre avec la même énergie que le français. L’enjeu est de ne pas se retrouver piégés dans le dilemme : « nier soi-même ou nier l’autre », car il faut assumer nos appartenances multiples et concilier nos besoins mutuels d’identité, tout en protégeant et valorisant le français.

Aujourd’hui, des langues disparaissent, l’anglicisation s’accélère, les effets conjugués de la mondialisation et du radicalisme religieux se heurtent au retour d’idéologies, telles que la montée du nationalisme identitaire dans le monde. Il importe de rappeler que les idéologies ne meurent jamais : elles sont « plus qu’une idée, un projet ou un idéal : c’est aussi un mouvement, un combat, souvent mené contre d’autres » mouvements.

Relire Les identités meurtrières aujourd’hui, c’est comprendre que la question identitaire n’est pas un débat secondaire ou passéiste. Le véritable enjeu est de bâtir un monde où nos appartenances multiples cessent d’être des menaces pour devenir des richesses partagées. C’est cette tâche, éminemment politique et profondément humaine, que nous rappelle Maalouf : défendre la pluralité des langues, des cultures et des modes de vie, non comme un vestige à protéger, mais comme une condition vitale pour l’humanité.

Christian Bergeron ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Pourquoi il faut lire – ou relire – « Les identités meurtrières » d’Amin Maalouf – https://theconversation.com/pourquoi-il-faut-lire-ou-relire-les-identites-meurtrieres-damin-maalouf-265050

September 17, 2025

Is the ‘Biggest Loser’ documentary entangled in its own internalized fatphobia?

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Darby M. Babin, PhD Candidate, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Were you expecting Fit for TV: The Reality of the Biggest Loser to peel back the curtain and provide hard-hitting truths on what really happened on the show that captivated millions in its heyday?

Well, uh, fat chance.

Instead, the three-part Netflix documentary, released mid-August, seems to traffic in some of the same problematic aspects of the show that spurred the need for an exposé in the first place.

Best of intentions?

This purported tell-all documentary — billed as exposing the truth of The Biggest Loser — is a bit of a nothing burger. There is no groundbreaking admission from the producers of the reality show that it shamelessly exploited fat people.

Instead, viewers are told the show’s creators had only the best of intentions and that it was just an unfortunate accident that things got out of hand when the trainers — Jillian Michaels and Bob Harper — took their roles too seriously.

The focus, for example, shifts to Michaels’ alleged failings, like providing contestants with banned caffeine pills. Michaels has refuted those claims and threatened legal action against Netflix.

Dr. Robert Huizenga, the show’s medical director tasked with overseeing the contestants’ health and well-being, is cast as the embodiment of concern and the voice of reason. Michaels is portrayed as the main villain while Harper gets off relatively scot-free. To elicit sympathy for him, we are reminded of his heart attack — so out of character for such a fit guy, of course.

The fatphobia problem

This is the fatphobic myth: bad health happens only to bad (see: fat) people, like the ones who auditioned to appear on The Biggest Loser. People like Harper should be safe from illness because they have lived lives worshipping at the altar of the fitness goddesses.

All the tropes about fat people lacking will power and being “lazy” (a term loaded with ableism) coalesce in this two-hour watch.

A welcome breath of fresh air is provided by Aubrey Gordon, a razor-sharp fat activist who writes under the moniker, Your Fat Friend. Her thoughtful critique is accessible to viewers who are less familiar with fat studies. And with her first appearance, she reminds us that what the show markets as its inspirational ideology differs in practice both on screen and behind when she remarks: “I’ll tell you what I think the show thinks it’s about…”

Gordon also challenges The Biggest Loser‘s overarching message by highlighting Harper’s heart attack. She says: “It sort of punctures one of the main arguments of the show, ‘If you’re fat, you’re going to die.’ And if you exercise ‘correctly,’ as determined by Bob and Jillian, all of these health outcomes will be warded off.”

Gordon’s observations are as close as the series gets to truly examining the fatphobia at the heart of the reality show.

The racism problem

Joelle Gwynn, who joined the show with friend Carla Triplett in 2009, is the only person in the documentary to openly raise concerns about race. She mulls over feeling as though the producers and fellow contestants were trying to frame her as the “angry Black woman.”

The angry Black woman trope is tied to what race, gender and class scholar Patricia Hill Collins calls “controlling images” of Black women, in particular the Sapphire, the Mammy and the Jezebel. These images are intended to demean, dehumanize and punish Black women in the name of white supremacy. The angry Black woman is the Sapphire’s contemporary, described by The Jim Crow Museum as “rude, loud, malicious, stubborn and overbearing.”

Triplett was perceived as more committed and jovial. When the pair was eliminated, Triplett was offered apologies while Gwynn faced hostility.

Indeed, as the producers confirm on the documentary, they sought out people who were downtrodden. In executive producer JD Roth’s own words: “We were not looking for people who were overweight and happy. There’s a lot of ’em. That’s fine. We were looking for people who were overweight and unhappy.”

Gwynn was too willful, unwilling to accept the treatment that the show seemed to believe she deserved by virtue of her fat, Black body. During one of her interview segments in Fit for TV, Gwynn looks directly into the camera after she shares a difficult memory of Harper berating her and says: “Fuck you, Bob Harper.” Somebody had to say it.

Of course, fatphobia and racism are deeply intertwined. As Sabrina Strings explains in her book Fearing the Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia, anti-fatness emerged through chattel slavery when colonizers realized they had fat bodies in common with those they enslaved. This similarity was incompatible with their beliefs about superiority, so they mobilized chattel slavery and eugenics to tie anti-fatness to Blackness.

The misogyny problem

Perhaps the most puzzling case is that of Tracey Yukich, who made a dramatic entrance in Season 8 when she collapsed during her first running challenge and was hospitalized and diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis (an injury where muscle tissue breaks down).

Yukich explains that the reason she was willing to push herself so hard was her belief that weight-loss would improve her abusive marriage. She shares that the infidelity and abuse in her relationship felt inseparable from her weight gain and that the show was her opportunity to turn things around.

It is difficult to watch as there is no onscreen evidence to suggest Yukich ever received support from anyone at The Biggest Loser about the abuse in her marriage.

For all the talk about health in the reality show, Yukich’s mental health didn’t seem a priority. Instead, the doctor acts as counsellor and encourages Yukich to use the show as a second chance. Unable to exercise, however, she followed in the footsteps of other contestants who reduced their caloric intake to 800 or less — in other words, starvation.

The individual problem

A hyper-focus on individual responsibility is embodied in the entrepreneurial contestants who jockeyed for a spot on the show. The promise of freedom from fat is intoxicating.

The collective fascination with weight loss under the contradictory “weight” of liberalism, as critical food scholars Julie Guthman and Melanie DuPuis so aptly put it, reminds us that we live in societies that exhort us to consume more and eat less.

This, Guthman and DuPuis argue, “produces contradictory impulses such that the neoliberal subject is emotionally compelled to participate in society as both out-of-control consumer and self-controlled subject.”

The Biggest Loser reflects this neoliberal paradox of consumption and restraint: contestants were berated during exercise and told to try harder, yet given temptation challenges with desirable foods that tested their ability to resist so-called bad eating habits.

Who is the biggest loser?

More than a decade later, viewers are left to wonder, in the age of wall-to-wall weight loss drugs such as Ozempic, have we really moved the needle?

Is it surprising that when we paused viewing, a Dairy Queen ad popped up beside the cover image of the documentary? Like The Biggest Loser, it seems society and entertainment industries, bolstered by advertising, want both our self-control and our consumption.

And if we fail to appreciate that the media spectacle of weight loss is as grotesque as the profits made from weight-loss products, then maybe “the biggest loser” is us.

Darby M. Babin receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Michael Orsini receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

– ref. Is the ‘Biggest Loser’ documentary entangled in its own internalized fatphobia? – https://theconversation.com/is-the-biggest-loser-documentary-entangled-in-its-own-internalized-fatphobia-264752

September 17, 2025

SHIELD: A simple, memorable model to help prevent Alzheimer’s disease and dementia

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Donald Weaver, Professor of Chemistry and Senior Scientist of the Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network, University of Toronto

Up to one-third of Alzheimer’s disease cases could be prevented simply by avoiding certain risk factors. (Piqsels)

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is on track to become one of the defining public health challenges of our time. Every three seconds, somewhere in the world, someone is diagnosed with dementia, and it’s usually Alzheimer’s disease.

Currently, approximately 50 million people worldwide have AD. By 2050, this number will exceed 130 million.

The human health and socioeconomic consequences of this are going to be immense. But perhaps it doesn’t have to be this way.

Preventing Alzheimer’s disease

A 2024 report from the influential Lancet Commission suggests that up to one-third of AD cases could be prevented simply by avoiding certain risk factors. These 14 modifiable risk factors encompass: traumatic brain injury, hypertension, depression, diabetes, smoking, obesity, high cholesterol levels, low physical activity levels, too much alcohol consumption, too little education, vision loss, hearing loss, social isolation and air pollution.

While this comprehensive list is rooted soundly in science, it’s not easy for members of the general public to monitor and manage 14 separate health targets — especially when prevention efforts need to start decades before symptoms appear.

This is a problem that needs addressing. Tackling this problem requires a prevention model that is simple and memorable — something the public can easily embrace, understand and follow.

There are successful examples that can serve as a template. Stroke prevention associations, for instance, have successfully adopted the FAST (Face, Arm, Speech, Time) mnemonic to teach stroke warning signs. AD prevention needs a FAST equivalent.

SHIELD (Sleep, Head Injury prevention, Exercise, Learning and Diet) may fill that role. SHIELD brings together the most significant, overlapping dementia risk factors into five core pillars, offering a clear and effective strategy for prevention.

Sleep

Sleep is a foundational element of SHIELD. Maintaining healthy sleep habits is a key protective factor against dementia. Adequate sleep supports brain function, memory, mood and learning.

Insufficient (less than five hours per night) or poor-quality sleep (frequent awakenings), especially in midlife, increases the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Chronic poor sleep leads to build-up in the brain of amyloid-beta protein, which is implicated in the development of AD.

Poor sleep also increases the likelihood of obesity, high blood pressure and depression, all risk factors for AD. If you’re currently sleeping four to five hours per night, consider changing this habit to avoid increasing your risk for developing dementia in later life. Sleep is a vital tool for brain protection and AD prevention.

Head injury

Head injury prevention is, rather surprisingly, often overlooked in conversations about dementia. There are strong links between traumatic brain injuries, including concussions, and higher AD risk.

Such head injuries can occur in a wide variety of settings, not just professional sports. Intimate partner violence, for example, is unfortunately common in our society and is a frequent, but neglected, cause of head trauma.

Head injury prevention should start early and continue throughout life, as damage can accumulate over time. Broader safety measures (such as improved helmet designs, stronger concussion protocols in youth and adult sports and efforts to prevent head injuries in all settings) can play a significant role in protecting long-term brain health and avoiding AD.

Exercise

Exercise is perhaps the most powerful lifestyle habit for reducing the risk of AD. Exercise directly addresses multiple major risk factors, including obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and depression. It also supports the growth of brain cells, memory and emotional health.

Despite this, physical inactivity remains common, especially in high-income countries, where it may contribute to as many as one in five AD cases. Exercise is not just “heart medicine,” but “brain medicine” too. Regular movement, even in small amounts, enables better brain aging and can help avoid AD.

Learning

Learning, both in and out of school, remains one of the strongest protective factors against dementia. Lower educational levels, such as not finishing secondary school, are linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia. Learning contributes to the brain’s “cognitive reserve,” which is the brain’s ability to function well despite damage or disease.

Individuals with AD maintained better mental function if they had continued learning throughout life. Public health messaging should promote life-long learning in all forms — from reading and language learning to engaging hobbies that keep the brain active. It’s never too early (or too late) to learn another language or to challenge your brain. Boosting your cognitive reserve boosts your brain against AD.

Diet

Diet also plays a major role in brain health and dementia prevention. No single food prevents dementia. Rather, a combination of nutrient-rich foods supports overall brain health. A healthy diet can lower dementia risk by emphasizing whole foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and fish, while restricting processed foods, red meat and sweets.

Adhering to dietary patterns like the Mediterranean diet has shown promising results in protecting against cognitive decline. The Mediterranean diet is a brain/heart-healthy eating style inspired by the traditional diets of people in countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. It emphasizes plant-based foods with olive oil as the primary fat source, while limiting red meat, processed foods and added sugars.

What we eat influences brain inflammation and brain vascular health — all of which are increasingly tied to AD. A healthy diet shouldn’t feel restrictive or like a punishment for trying to improve brain health. Instead, it can be framed as a positive investment in long-term independence, clarity and energy.

By simplifying the science, the SHIELD framework offers a realistic and research-backed approach to brain health. Until a cure is discovered, prevention is the strongest tool. Concepts like SHIELD provide a starting point for achievable prevention.

Alzheimer’s disease should not be seen as inevitable. The statistic that there will be more than 130 million people with AD by 2050 must not be accepted as predestined. With the right decisions and actions, we can work towards AD prevention by protecting the minds and memories of millions.

Emma Twiss, a fourth year undergraduate student in Life Sciences at Queen’s University, co-authored this story.

Donald Weaver 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.

– ref. SHIELD: A simple, memorable model to help prevent Alzheimer’s disease and dementia – https://theconversation.com/shield-a-simple-memorable-model-to-help-prevent-alzheimers-disease-and-dementia-265053

September 17, 2025

Twilight at 20: the many afterlives of Stephenie Meyer’s vampires

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Olive, Senior Lecturer in Literature, Aston University

This year marks the 20th anniversary of Stephenie Meyer’s novel, Twilight. The book series of the same name has sold over 160 million copies, been translated into 38 languages and adapted into five blockbuster films.

Vampires are perennially popular, largely because we make and remake them to help us address our social concerns and fears. As author Nina Auerbach argues in her 1995 book Our Vampires, Ourselves: “We make the vampires we need for the times we live in.”

The vampires of Twilight captured the spirit of 2005. Fantasy fiction and film with a central struggle between good and evil abounded: think Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. The melancholy of Twilight’s characters also chimed with chart-topping emo music (which formed some of the soundtrack for the film adaptations).

The novel follows the relationship between teenage human Bella Swan and vampire Edward Cullen, a centenarian soul in an immortal late-teenage boy’s body. The book appealed to the millennial feminism of 2005: it was told from Bella’s point of view, and Edward’s aesthetic (preppy minimalism) and pastimes (reading and playing piano) offered an alternative to machismo. But does Twilight offer the vampires we need in 2025?

This article is part of a mini series marking 20 years since the publication of Stephenie Meyer’s first Twilight novel.

Criticism of the Twilight saga has gained momentum in recent years. Much attention has focused on the series’ representations of abstinence. Some of the abstinence has been widely celebrated, including the way that Edward eschews human blood and has converted his family to “vegetarian” vampirism. They feed off animals rather than humans. Other instances are more divisive, such as his refusal to “turn” Bella into a vampire – despite her repeated requests – and insistence on abstaining from sex until they are married in the fourth novel, Breaking Dawn (2008). He only relents and turns her into a vampire when she nearly dies during childbirth.

Edward’s leading role in determining the couple’s physical relationship, and their subsequent dominant-submissive dynamic, has attracted much feminist critique. Especially about the suitability of a Bella as role model for young women.

Critics and those who “love to hate” Twilight alike have also explored a prominent moment where Edward gaslights Bella. Gaslighting refers to consciously manipulating someone into thinking their perception of reality is untrue.

A fan video about Edward’s ‘gaslighting’ behaviour with over 1.5 million views on YouTube.

Meyer describes him racing across a carpark in time to stop an out-of-control car from crushing Bella using only his bare hands. Fearing his supernatural nature will become public, he repeatedly tells Bella that she’s deluded because of her injuries – he claims he was stood next to her at the time of the accident. He makes Bella and other characters question her true version of events and persuades them to believe his lie.

Another behaviour that has met with debate is Edward repeatedly breaking into Bella’s bedroom to watch her sleep – is it romantic, creepy or criminal?

Meyer’s response

Partly in response to these accusations of anti-feminism, Meyer published the novel, Life and Death: Twilight Reimagined in 2015 to celebrate the tenth anniversary of Twilight’s release.

Stephenie Meyer at a microphone stand — Stephenie Meyer in 2012.
Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA

The novel is a gender-swapped version of Twilight with vampire Edythe and human Beau. The debate around turning Beau into a human takes up far less space than in Twilight. He is turned after being attacked by a vampire from another coven, a marked departure from Bella’s slower trajectory. Meyer’s claims in the book’s introduction that it is possible to invert the protagonists’ genders and have the same story were therefore undercut.

Meyer has retold the saga from the perspective of other characters too. There’s The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (2010) based on the third book in the saga, Eclipse (2007), and Midnight Sun (2020), which recounts Twilight from Edward’s point of view.

There has been much speculation that Meyer has a tricky relationship with Twilight fan fiction, such as the Fifty Shades of Grey series by E.L. James – best-selling sado-masochistic erotica novels and blockbuster films that began life as Twilight fan fiction.

Creating alternative versions of her novels seems to be Meyer’s way of regaining control over them in the face of the abundant, unauthorised, creative responses made by fans.

Twilight’s lack of diversity

In addition to its debated feminist credentials, shortfalls in the diversity of the series may also influence Twilight’s longevity.

Where the Me Too movement has made a significant impression on attitudes towards sexual assault, movements such as Black Lives Matter and We Need Diverse Books have shifted them in relation to race, sexuality and other marginalised identities since the saga was first published.

A scene showing adult werewolf Jacob Black “imprinting” on baby Renesmee in Breaking Dawn has been decried not only in relation to consent and age inappropriateness, but also racist stereotyping.

The moment Jacob ‘imprints’ on Bella and Edward’s infant daughter in the film.

Imprinting in the saga is depicted as an involuntary phenomenon wherein Quileute shape-shifters (an Indigenous community to which Jacob belongs) are bound for life to someone instinctively perceived to be their soulmate. It works a little like love at first sight, except that it immediately entails the imprinter’s utter dedication to and responsibility for their imprintee.

Openly queer characters aren’t a feature of Twilight but, as with gaps in its racial and gender representation, fans have filled the voids they identify with their own interpretations and creations.

Meyer is currently collaborating with Netflix to adapt Midnight Sun as an animation. This may add impetus to the “Twilight renaissance” exemplified by user-generated content in recent years, but the truly powerful reincarnations that will enable Twilight to navigate the challenges thrown at it in recent years, and in years to come, will continue to come from the Twihards (as fans of the series are known) themselves.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Sarah Olive 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.

– ref. Twilight at 20: the many afterlives of Stephenie Meyer’s vampires – https://theconversation.com/twilight-at-20-the-many-afterlives-of-stephenie-meyers-vampires-263008

September 17, 2025

US adds Colombia to list of countries failing in fight against drugs – here’s why that matters

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adriana Marin, Lecturer in International Relations, Coventry University

The US has “decertified” Colombia as an ally in the fight against drugs, adding it to a list of countries including Afghanistan, Myanmar and Venezuela. Behind the decision lie surging coca cultivation and a desire to signal that US support for Colombia is no longer unconditional. It represents a rupture in one of Washington’s longest-standing security partnerships in the region.

Under US law, the president must annually assess whether major drug-producing or transit countries are “fully cooperating” with American counternarcotics efforts. Those judged to be “failing demonstrably” risk losing access to most US foreign assistance and face US opposition in multilateral lending bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

Colombia, which has long been regarded as Washington’s anchor in Latin America, has not been decertified since 1997. That move followed allegations that the then-Colombian president, Ernesto Samper Pizano, had accepted campaign contributions from drug traffickers. Washington’s frustration now focuses on a different concern: the transformation of Colombia’s drug policy under President Gustavo Petro.

When Petro took office in 2022 as Colombia’s first leftist leader, he pledged to end what he called the “failed war on drugs”. His government has shifted away from militarised crackdowns and the forced eradication of coca plantations toward negotiated transitions, voluntary crop substitution and rural development.

Petro argues that the drug trade is rooted in poverty, inequality and state absence, and that decades of repression have only entrenched cycles of violence. He has resisted resuming aerial spraying of coca fields with glyphosate herbicide, which Colombian courts suspended in 2015 over environmental and health concerns.

US officials view Petro’s policy as dangerously permissive. From Washington’s perspective, eradication and interdiction remain the clearest indicators of cooperation. Both have declined as cocaine output has surged.

According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), around 253,000 hectares of Colombia were under coca cultivation in 2023. This figure was close to a historic high. Colombia now produces more than six times as much cocaine as it did in 1993, the year the Medellín cartel leader Pablo Escobar was killed.

The UNODC says Colombia is now responsible for 67% of global cocaine production. And research also shows coca cultivation expanding into protected areas, including national parks, where enforcement is difficult and environmental risks are acute.

Washington’s concerns go beyond eradication metrics. US officials have quietly criticised Petro’s government for slowing or conditioning the extradition of drug traffickers. Handing drug traffickers to the US to stand trial is a practice that has long been central to bilateral cooperation.

The US has also grown wary of Petro’s foreign policy. He has overseen warmer ties with Venezuela and more engagement with China, all while displaying scepticism toward US-led security initiatives. These developments have raised doubts about Colombia’s long-term alignment with Washington’s strategy.

Why decertification matters

Decertification is a blunt instrument that is useful for punishment. But it is hard to calibrate without collateral damage across other areas of cooperation such as security, environmental protection and migration.

Legally, decertification allows the US to suspend most foreign assistance, block or oppose international loans and limit trade preferences. But in practice, Washington often tempers these consequences by issuing “national interest” waivers that allow aid to continue.

The Trump administration has signalled that such a waiver will apply to Colombia. This will preserve some assistance while making other funds conditional on policy shifts. However, the symbolic impact of decertification is still significant.

Colombia’s reputation as Washington’s anchor in the region has been dented and private investors may see the move as a warning sign of heightened risk in the Colombian security and economic environment. It also injects mistrust into a diplomatic relationship that has long underpinned US security strategies in Latin America.

The decision places Petro in a delicate position. It hands ammunition to his political opponents, who accuse him of being soft on crime and presiding over deteriorating security. It may also pressure Petro to resume aerial spraying. Civil society groups warn that fumigation could spark protests, harm health and damage ecosystems.

At the same time, capitulating to US demands risks undermining Petro’s flagship agenda of peace-building and rural development. Many coca-growing communities support his shift away from militarisation; reversing course could alienate them and erode trust in the state. Petro must therefore walk a fine line: show enough cooperation to unlock US support without betraying his domestic mandate.

Although framed as a response to drug policy failures, the timing and tone of the decertification have fuelled speculation that Washington is seeking leverage on broader issues. Some analysts argue the US may use it to extract concessions on extradition policy, Colombia’s stance toward Venezuela and China, and governance and human rights safeguards in drug enforcement.

Ultimately, Washington’s decision reflects both acute frustration and calculated pressure. It shows how far the approaches of the two governments toward the drug war have diverged, and how the US is now willing to use cooperation as a means to advance broader strategic aims.

For Petro, the challenge is to prove that his developmental model can contain his country’s cocaine economy without reverting to policies that many Colombians see as destructive. For Washington, the risk is that coercion may not bring Bogotá back onside, but instead push it further away.

How both sides respond could reshape US-Colombia relations for years to come.

Adriana Marin 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.

– ref. US adds Colombia to list of countries failing in fight against drugs – here’s why that matters – https://theconversation.com/us-adds-colombia-to-list-of-countries-failing-in-fight-against-drugs-heres-why-that-matters-265410

September 17, 2025

‘Greenhushing’ is a trend that leaves businesses downplaying their environmental wins

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marta Nieto-Garcia, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Portsmouth, Universidad de Salamanca

These days, institutions and companies love to announce what they’re doing to tackle the climate crisis. Terms like “sustainable”, “environmentally friendly” and “low-carbon” are often used to trumpet messages about production and consumption. But in reality, the claims are not always accompanied by real, effective action – a shady practice known as greenwashing.

But at the same time, other companies are not communicating their sustainability actions.

This phenomenon is known as “greenhushing” and it could be just as dangerous as greenwashing. When organisations downplay their efforts, the broader sustainability conversation can be weakened – and the opportunity for businesses to be agents of social change could be lost.

But why would companies deliberately hide things that they are doing well?

Our research has investigated how and why organisations take part in greenhushing. We focused particularly on how this occurs in service organisations, such as those in the travel sector.

First, we examined the communication strategies of 300 UK hotels across three channels: hotel websites, profiles on travel site Booking.com, and social media platforms. We found that 62% of UK hotel websites do not include sustainability information, with only 2% of social media posts referring to it.

Although booking platforms signal the sustainability of hotels that have third-party certifications, hotel websites often don’t provide much explanation in this regard. This highlights the gap between implementing practices and effectively communicating them to potential customers.

Next, we dug deeper into the reasons for this by interviewing marketers across service sectors, including accommodation, food and wellness.

We uncovered three main reasons for the tendency towards not communicating – or even hiding – sustainability actions. First, managers spoke of reputational risks, highlighting their fear of being accused of greenwashing.

This is risky when companies are not genuinely committed to the sustainability cause, but instead adopt a superficial approach to it. But when a business has genuinely made efforts towards more sustainable practices, transparent communication – supported by evidence of what action they have taken – could prevent damage to reputations.

They could, for example, enrich their communications with photos of their environmental initiatives (things like before-and-after photos of an upgrade to energy-efficient lighting, for example).

They could also demonstrate the effectiveness of their actions (how much they’ve cut food waste, perhaps) or show their commitment to improving ecosystems (such as restoring green spaces at a location where they operate).

Empower employees

Second, managers said they lacked confidence about the effectiveness of their sustainability practices. But this uncertainty stands in contrast to the increasing public demand for companies to take action on sustainability. Businesses need to make sure employees feel confident in talking about how powerful and meaningful their sustainability actions can be.

To support this, organisations should ensure employees have the resources and systems to understand and engage in sustainability efforts.

Providing tools that demonstrate the impact of their work on the planet can boost employees’ confidence – and their motivation to make a difference. This involves not only offering performance measures but also creating a culture of care and implementing policies that strengthen employees’ connections to nature in their communities.

For example, companies might use immersive experiences or visualisations to help employees grasp the business’s impact on the natural environment.

a hotel breakfast buffet with people just visible at the side — Businesses could demonstrate their commitment to cutting food waste.
Ksenija Toyechkina/Shutterstock

Finally, many service managers highlighted that instead of communicating good practice, they relied on sustainability certifications provided by third-party institutions (such as the Booking.com Travel Sustainable programme) to do the talking for them.

Trusted certification schemes can help consumers make decisions on who to buy from – or who to work for. But consumers don’t always understand all these certifications. The sheer number can make it difficult for the public to know which ones are credible or relevant.

Over-reliance on certifications can even be risky: scepticism towards some schemes means that consumers may lose trust in the business if the certification badge it displays loses credibility in some way. And taken alone, they may offer little insight into the specific actions a company may be taking.

To build trust, it would be better for organisations to go beyond the label and provide clear, accessible, comprehensive information about their specific sustainability actions. Inviting employees to publicly share the company’s commitments and initiatives can make its stance on sustainability more tangible and credible.

Greenhushing is not just a missed marketing opportunity – it is a missed opportunity for progress. When companies choose to stay silent about their sustainability efforts for fear of negative consequences, it stifles discourse and limits the exchange of ideas that could inspire broader environmental change.

Open communication lets businesses share best practice, acknowledge challenges and learn from one another. More importantly, it enables consumers to hold companies to account while encouraging and rewarding responsible behaviour. The sustainability dialogue needs to be nurtured so that businesses have the opportunity to act as genuine agents of social change.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘Greenhushing’ is a trend that leaves businesses downplaying their environmental wins – https://theconversation.com/greenhushing-is-a-trend-that-leaves-businesses-downplaying-their-environmental-wins-264640

September 17, 2025

Songs for Littles: the research that explains YouTube sensation Ms Rachel

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elizabeth Coombes, Senior Lecturer in Music Therapy, University of South Wales

For many parents of babies and toddlers, there is one YouTube channel that is a household name. Ms Rachel and her Songs for Littles has attracted nearly 17 million subscribers, offering a colourful, playful space where music, movement and early learning meet.

But beyond the catchy tunes and pink overalls, research backs up why her videos are so effective, and why parents should consider joining in, not just letting their children watch.

For years, music therapists have studied how musical interaction supports early development. My own research has looked at how music can strengthen the bonds between parents and their children.

Before becoming a global phenomenon, Rachel Anne Accurso was a pre-school music teacher. When her son experienced a language delay, she sought speech therapy support and noticed a lack of resources for children needing help with language development.

Drawing on her teaching experience, she began creating small music classes tailored to early learners, which eventually became the online content we now know.

When the pandemic hit in 2020, parents were starved of social interactions for their children. Ms Rachel’s videos – featuring her signature pink overalls, funky headbands and high-energy performances – became a lifeline for many.

Learn to Talk with Ms Rachel.

Her colourful videos offer engaging activities that parents and children can listen to and explore together. Simple musical games such as peek-a-boo and action songs encourage family playtime, while attractive graphics and high production standards make the channel very appealing.

Today, the channel has more than 11 billion views, while Ms Rachel herself is estimated to be worth US$6.5 million (£4.8 million).

So, why are her videos so appealing to children and effective for their development? Part of the answer lies in what psychologists call “communicative musicality”. Research has shown that early interactions between parents and infants are intrinsically musical.

‘Parentese’

Elements like rhythm, timing, pitch and phrasing are central to how babies and toddlers engage with the world. When adults speak to children, they instinctively use “parentese”. This is a higher-pitched, exaggerated style of speech with lively gestures and expressive faces. These cues capture attention and make learning fun. They help children absorb language naturally.

Ms Rachel’s videos mirror these principles. Her songs are simple, repetitive and often interactive. They encourage children to respond, copy gestures or sing along.

The videos’ structure, like predictable openings and closings, clear cues and pauses, support attention and help children feel secure while exploring language. Funny moments, surprises and lively expressions make the experience enjoyable, helping the children learn without it feeling like a lesson.

Baby’s First Words with Ms Rachel.

Building on these musical connections can also help develop the bond between parents and child. My research in 2021 into the importance of parents singing with premature babies shows this.

Parents were excited to learn that their babies recognised their voices from before birth. The connection was already there and they just needed to build on it to keep the bond growing and developing.

Ukraine

In 2022, a book I co-authored, looked at the benefits of group music therapy families with pre-school children displaced from Ukraine to the UK due to the war. Some children had speech delays or were struggling to socialise with their peers. In some cases, parents were struggling to bond with their children.

After eight weeks of small group music therapy sessions, significant changes began to take place. Parents reported not only language development but progress in sharing and playing with others as well as feeling more love for their children.

Music became a feature at home too. The songs the children learned became part of family life. Parents were making up their own songs too, about brushing teeth and getting ready for nursery. They realised that making these activities into a musical game made them special times that were full of fun.

What was important in the music therapy groups was to keep the format the same each week. The groups began with a “hello” song on the guitar, where every child was greeted by name. From this beginning, other songs were introduced.

There was time for improvised music with everyone playing and trying out new sounds with instruments before a quieter section using lullabies was introduced. The group ended with a “goodbye” song to finish the experience.

Keeping the same structure ensured the group was a safe space where everyone knew what was going to happen next. This meant the families could really let themselves be part of the experience.

Ms Rachel’s formula of simple repetitive songs using “parentese” is a brilliant way of helping pre-school and nursery-age children develop language and social skills. And, perhaps just as importantly, it’s fun. For children and parents alike, music provides a chance to connect, laugh and grow together.

Elizabeth Coombes received funding from The Music Therapy Charity for the work with premature babies. Very small amount; less than £1000.The first study with Ukrainian Families was not funded. I have since done another study (not referenced here as data analysis still ongoing) with Afghan and Ukrainian families.

– ref. Songs for Littles: the research that explains YouTube sensation Ms Rachel – https://theconversation.com/songs-for-littles-the-research-that-explains-youtube-sensation-ms-rachel-263589

September 17, 2025

Caribbean coral reefs are running out of time to keep up with rising seas – new study

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Perry, Professor in Tropical Coastal Geoscience, University of Exeter

Weedy corals colonise a dead reef structure in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Lauren T Toth, CC BY-NC-ND

Caribbean coral reefs are sounding the alarm. These ecosystems, which protect millions of people and sustain billion-dollar industries, are on the verge of collapse – not in some distant future, but within our lifetimes.

We have been studying reefs across the western Atlantic region for more than 25 years to understand the ways reef communities are changing, and how this affects their ability to keep growing.

Our new research shows that reefs across the region are now reaching a point where they will no longer keep pace with sea-level rise. This will affect the ability of reefs to buffer coastlines from wave energy, threatening nearshore habitats.

Unless global warming by 2100 is limited to below 2°C (relative to pre-industrial levels), our study suggests nearly every reef will stop growing – and most will start eroding by the end of this century. The consequences for coastal communities will be severe.

Coral reefs aren’t just attractive dive sites. They are living breakwaters: dampening wave energy, reducing storm damage, and creating sheltered environments for habitats like seagrass meadows that serve as fish nurseries. Lose the reef structure and you don’t just lose biodiversity – you expose shorelines, weaken food security, and put lives at risk.

Globally, reefs protect an estimated 5.3 million people and coastal assets worth more than US$100 billion (£74 billion) every decade. Even if reef decline seems like a distant issue for many, the changes taking place now – and the consequences of these changes in future – are illustrative of what happens when regional ecosystems pass thresholds for their persistence.

Many of the world’s coastal ecosystems, which also provide protection and habitable land, are equally threatened – with implications for us all.

A coral bleaching time series in Mexico.

Historically, Caribbean reefs grew upward at rates averaging 4–5 millimetres a year – fast enough to keep up with past sea level changes. Our research shows that their average growth rate has slowed to less than 1 millimetre per year, or just a centimetre each decade.

Reefs have been battered for decades by overfishing, disease outbreaks and pollution. Climate change is accelerating their decline; a trend we have been monitoring at many reef sites. Unprecedented levels of thermal stress occurred in 2023 and 2024 across the western Atlantic, leading to widespread coral bleaching.

Rising ocean temperatures can kill corals outright, slow the growth of surviving corals and increase coral vulnerability to disease, while simultaneously driving sea levels higher.

This “double squeeze” means reefs are moving in the wrong direction. Instead of building upward as sea levels rise, many are starting to erode. Our new modelling shows that by 2040, more than 70% of Caribbean reefs will be in states where their structures are starting to erode away. If warming passes 2°C, that figure rises to over 99% by 2100.

coral reef, surface of waves in blue sea — A degraded reef crest in the Caribbean island of St Croix.
Lauren T Toth, CC BY-NC-ND

Modelling reef growth rates

One of the big challenges in our research is linking today’s reef ecology with reef growth potential – in other words, how the balance of living organisms translates into vertical “accretion” (reef building).

We analysed sequences of corals preserved in fossilised reefs from locations across the tropical western Atlantic region, and used that information to improve our understanding of how reef growth rates vary depending on the types of coral present on a reef.

We then combined this with ecological data collected during diving surveys to determine the types and abundance of corals that contribute to reef building. These surveys were conducted on more than 400 modern reef sites across the region. We collected data on corals and other marine species, such as parrot fish and urchins, that contribute to reef building.

This allowed us to calculate present-day reef growth rates – and to project how rates will change in the future. We could then compare these rates against present and future sea level rise projections for different levels of climate warming.

Climate scientists predict we are on track for around 2.7°C of warming by the end of the century under current climate policies and emission levels. That would drive sea levels up by 8-10 millimetres a year by 2100 – far faster than reefs can currently match.

By 2060 under such warming, reefs in the region are likely to see an extra 30–40cm of water above today’s levels. By 2100, the figure could reach in excess of 70cm, and would exceed one metre under higher warming trends. The consequences will be stark: reduced storm protection, faster shoreline erosion, disrupted ecosystems and damaged infrastructure.

We also investigated whether reef restoration could reverse these trends. Efforts to plant corals and breed heat-tolerant strains are under way and offer some hope. In small areas, with enough resources, they have been shown to boost growth and recovery.

However, the scale of the problem – thousands of square miles of reef – means restoration alone is very unlikely to be enough. Cutting emissions is critical to halting declines in reef growth, and essential to give restoration efforts any chance.

turquoise ocean, waves breaking, brown coral reefs visible underwater — A wave breaks over a reef crest in Mexico.
Lorenzo Alvarez-Filip, CC BY-NC-ND

The uncomfortable truth

The science is blunt: our emissions trajectory will decide whether reefs can continue to grow or will start to erode away. Staying close to 1.5°C of warming would offer reefs a fighting chance. Push much beyond that and we condemn them – and the people who depend on them – to widespread loss.

Technologies that help cut emissions and reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere already exist, and new technologies are emerging. Green energy, carbon capture and ecosystem restoration can all play a role, but require political will and investment. Our own choices matter too – from how we live on a daily basis to the politicians we elect.

Coral reefs are the canaries in the climate coal mine. If we allow their degradation to continue, it won’t stop there. It will be shorelines, food systems and communities next.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Chris Perry receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council, The Leverhulme Trust and the Bertarelli Foundation.

Christopher Cornwall receives funding from The Royal Society of New Zealand and the Tertiary Education Commission.

Lorenzo Alvarez-Filip 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.

– ref. Caribbean coral reefs are running out of time to keep up with rising seas – new study – https://theconversation.com/caribbean-coral-reefs-are-running-out-of-time-to-keep-up-with-rising-seas-new-study-265203