Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

In the last ten years, Bruce Springsteen has cemented his status as a bona fide music legend.

In that time, he has won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, had a worldwide bestselling book been the subject of the acclaimed film Blinded By The Light (2019), and seen his studio albums continue to scale the higher reaches of the charts.

It’s as a live act, though, that Springsteen has flourished the most. Known for a relentless work ethic which has seen him touring almost non-stop since the early 1970s, Springsteen’s recent world tour has been his most lucrative, best-selling, and longest to date. On the back of all this, it’s no real surprise that “the boss” (as fans call him) has now been given the biopic treatment.

Bruce Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere stars Jeremy Allen White in the title role. The majority of the film focuses on the period between 1981 and 1982, where, in the aftermath of number one LP The River and a sold-out world tour, a disenchanted Springsteen channelled his inner turmoil into the songs that would eventually form his next album, Nebraska (1982).

As well as a lyrical shift from his earlier work, Nebraska was a sonic departure, recorded on a four-track tape machine in his bedroom. Released on September 30 1982, Nebraska was as stark and minimalist as any album from a major rock star. Coming at the peak of Springsteen’s commercial success so far, it was an enormous risk.

Devotees will undoubtedly appreciate the deep-dive into a cult favourite album. But for the casual fan or interested cinema-goer, Deliver Me from Nowhere will likely feel underwhelming.

Despite getting the thumbs up form The Boss himself, White never quite convinces in the role. While he does an admirable job depicting the gentler side of Springsteen, he lacks the jutting-jawed physical presence that so defines the star’s stage persona.

The film is interspersed with black and white flashbacks to Freehold New Jersey 1957, where an eight-year-old Springsteen struggled to get attention from his disengaged, hard-drinking father (played by Stephen Graham). The distant father trope is well-worn ground in the music biopic genre (see Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocket Man and Love and Mercy) and it falls to Graham to pull off the unenviable task of providing context for why our titular rock star is so fragile, broken and unstable.

That Graham manages to achieve this in minimal screen-time is one of his finest acting achievements yet. His nuanced performance brings a complexity to what, in other hands, may have merely been a paint-by-numbers character.

Sadly, others didn’t escape this fate. Springsteen’s friend Matt Delia (Harrison Gilbertson) is ridiculously underdeveloped. Sound engineer Mike Batlan (Paul Walter Hauser) is a glorified delivery man, first bringing the four-track recorder to Springsteen’s house, then the cassette it produces to manager Jon Landau (Jeremy Strong) and doing little else in between. Love interest Faye Romano (Odessa Young), meanwhile, seemingly only exists as a vehicle to deliver a series of cliché-heavy lines such as “I just wish you’d let me in” and “until you’re honest with yourself, you’ll never be honest with me”.

Sadly, the clichés aren’t exclusive to Faye. Towards the end of the film, Delia is saying goodbye to Springsteen after driving him to his new home in Los Angeles. As he turns to leave, Delia calls his name, Springsteen turns, Delia goes to say something but can’t seem to get the words out. Springsteen waits expectantly, Delia starts to speak, then thinks better of it and walks out. The implication, of course, is that Delia had something heartfelt to say, but for whatever reason was unable. Had I not seen the same technique used a hundred times already on screen (though never in real life), it might have been emotional.

Perhaps the biggest sledgehammer of a line, though, and one which very much laughs in the face of the old “show don’t tell” writing adage, comes when John Landau informs record executive Al Teller (David Krumholtz) that “it’s like Bruce is channelling something deeply personal”. Yes – we’ve been seeing that for the last hour, John, but thank you for the glaring neon arrow just in case we missed it.

In contrast, though, the depiction of depression is extremely well handled. The film manages to avoid stereotypes such as hysteria, violent outbursts, or sufferers who are represented as always sad or depressed (in real life depression is not necessarily a constant state of mind).

Depression is demonstrated by Springsteen letting people down, being unable to articulate his feelings, and withdrawing from social situations. And even if the film does fall short in many ways, the music is always there to rescue it. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who was unable to resist playing Nebraska on repeat the second I was outside.

For everyone but the most hardcore fans, skipping the film altogether might be the best option. Especially as the album that inspired it has been given the box-set treatment, with five-disc set Nebraska ’82: Expanded Edition released last week (a coincidence, I’m sure).

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.

Glenn Fosbraey 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. Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere is an underwhelming ode to ‘the boss’ – https://theconversation.com/springsteen-deliver-me-from-nowhere-is-an-underwhelming-ode-to-the-boss-268426

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Karl Pike, Lecturer in British Politics/Public Policy, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London

If you blinked you may have missed it. Labour has a new deputy leader, Lucy Powell, who won the contest to replace Angela Rayner.

The position of deputy comes down to a vote of party members and affiliated supporters, and this contest was seen as an opportunity to give Keir Starmer’s leadership the thumbs up or thumbs down.

Members have gone for the latter, selecting Powell over Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, who was the Number 10 favourite for the role. In the end, Powell won 54% of the votes to Phillipson’s 46%.

Phillipson is popular in the party, and appears to have faced down grumbles from private schools about Labour’s VAT reforms. But polling and party mood had suggested Powell would win, even though Starmer had sacked her from his cabinet in September. This is proof both that politics is an unpredictable ride and that Labour’s internal politics is not currently blissful.

And although this was the first time since 2007 that Labour has held a contest for deputy leader while in office, turnout was just 16.6%.

Who is Lucy Powell?

Powell is no stranger to Labour leadership teams and of course only very recently served in Starmer’s government.

Having contested and lost the seat of Manchester Withington in the 2010 general election, Powell worked for Ed Miliband as Labour went into opposition, helping him establish himself as party leader.

A byelection in the Manchester Central constituency saw Powell selected and then elected for Labour in 2012, where she moved into shadow ministerial and shadow cabinet roles. Powell left the shadow cabinet in 2016, as Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership came under pressure from the parliamentary Labour party. She returned to frontbench Labour politics after Starmer became leader in 2020.

Based on her career so far, Powell is often characterised as being on the “soft left” of Labour – a label that could be used to describe many Labour party members, but which also obscures much variety, and different ideological perspectives. The “soft left” Powell is closer to the centre of that amorphous political grouping.

In choosing the candidate he did not favour, members are sending the prime minister a message that they, and many of those engaged with the party through trade unions, are not feeling motivated by the government’s performance – to say the least.

The deputy leader can play an important role within the parliamentary Labour party. They have a seat on the party’s National Executive Committee and are often involved in the party’s campaign machinery. They can act as a sounding board for MPs wanting to express views about political strategy, policy direction and legislative business.

Powell, who served as leader of the House of Commons in Starmer’s cabinet, already has experience of this kind of role. Her new role is simultaneously more formal and informal than her previous job.

As the elected deputy leader, Powell clearly has a legitimate role in discussing Labour’s ups and downs, privately and publicly. But from a governing perspective, the new deputy leader is outside of the cabinet and formal government decision-making – at least for now. This could be a recipe for further instability – and that was the argument against Powell’s candidacy during the contest.

That being said, Powell is experienced and has shown loyalty to the party. As the old adage goes, divided parties don’t win elections, and Powell will not want to make things worse for Labour.

What next?

Labour is in the doldrums. Losing the Caerphilly Senedd by-election was a sign that next year’s elections (which include elections to the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, as well as elections in England) may be very bad for Labour – meaning Starmer will come in for serious criticism.

Read more:
Plaid Cymru’s staggeringly large victory in Caerphilly is a warning to both Labour and Reform

He had already faced speculation about his position earlier in the autumn, including Manchester mayor Andy Burnham’s positioning prior to and during the party conference season. This demonstrated the unease felt after Labour’s first year.

Powell was right to dismiss the narrative connecting her candidacy to Burnham. The new deputy leader will instead be someone listened to in any analysis of Starmer’s leadership, particularly after the elections in 2026.

One big thing has not changed: Labour’s difficulty governing, stemming from Starmer’s cautious and ideologically confusing leadership. The next big political challenge to face is the budget, due to be delivered by Rachel Reeves on November 26.

The chancellor is in a difficult position, at least in part because Labour painted itself into a corner on tax policy before the 2024 general election.

Governing in these tumultuous times was always going to be difficult for Labour – but the leadership’s strategy has undoubtedly made it harder. This deputy leadership election may be looked back upon as a sign that the Labour party as a whole started to rethink its approach.

Karl Pike has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a member of the Labour Party and before becoming an academic was a political advisor for the Labour Party.

– ref. Lucy Powell becomes Labour’s deputy leader – what that means for the party and Keir Starmer – https://theconversation.com/lucy-powell-becomes-labours-deputy-leader-what-that-means-for-the-party-and-keir-starmer-268410

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sally Christine Reynolds, Associate Professor in Hominin Palaeoecology, Bournemouth University

Experts have been puzzled by recently discovered fossils from the hand of an extinct human relative, Paranthropus boisei. They have been surprised by a mix of human-like and gorilla-like traits in the fingers.

In the journal Nature, researchers describe the set of 1.5-million-year-old fossils from a site in Kenya that includes the first unambiguous Paranthropus hand bones identified in the fossil record. They are also a very rare example of a relatively complete set of hand bones from this time.

The first example of Paranthropus was discovered in South Africa by Dr Robert Broom in 1938. Its name means “beside man” and reflects the fact that it shared a direct ancestor (known as Australopithecus) with our own genus, Homo, but existed alongside the early human lineage. Broom’s fossils belonged to the species Paranthropus robustus.

The species Paranthropus boisei, on the other hand, was first discovered in Olduvai Gorge, Kenya, by Mary and Louis Leakey in 1959. Its massive mandible and teeth led to its nickname: the Nutcracker Man. The very molarised teeth (where a non-molar tooth takes on the appearance of a molar) indicated a possible diet of tough and fibrous foods – almost certainly consisting of vegetation – that required extensive chewing.

Paranthropus was a bipedal hominin, like representatives of our own lineage, with a similar body size. It also lived in similar habitats to early Homo. Yet it became extinct around 800,000 years ago. Inevitably, these two hominin lineages have been compared in every possible manner to identify which traits ensured Homo’s survival. Homo‘s persistence has been attributed to its large brain, small teeth and meat-based diet.

Paranthropus, on the other hand, with its large teeth and a smaller brain, is often cast as an evolutionary “also-ran” – not quite clever or adaptable enough to persist in a changing world. However, there was little real evidence for concrete differences in how Paranthropus used its body or its surroundings. Until now.

The new fossil set from Koobi Fora, on the eastern shores of Lake Turkana in Kenya, shows that Paranthropus boisei was not clumsy or poorly adapted to its lifestyle. The remains, dated to around 1.52 million years ago, include a partial skeleton with both hand and foot bones found alongside unmistakable P. boisei jaws and teeth. For the first time, we can connect this species’ massive chewing apparatus with the limbs and hands that helped it function in the ancient landscape.

The fingers are, in many respects, more like gorillas than humans, but the feet are very similar to Homo feet. In fact, the foot shows that P. boisei was an efficient biped, walking on arched, rigid feet that resemble our own more closely than those of earlier species such as Australopithecus afarensis.

The big toe was aligned with the others, and the joints show the same upward tilt – called dorsal canting – that allows modern humans to push off powerfully when walking or running. A twisted third metatarsal bone formed a transverse arch, the architectural feature that stiffens the human foot and turns it into a spring for energy-efficient movement.

The new find suggests a mix of both advanced and primitive features. It paints a picture of a creature capable of traversing the mixed open habitats of East Africa on two legs, moving confidently between feeding areas and perhaps even carrying food or simple tools. The powerful hands may have been used to forage for food which required a strong grip.

There may be an argument that Paranthropus was pulling itself into the trees. Until now, Paranthropus has not been thought of as a climber, nor an animal associated with particularly dense tree cover. It was thought that cooling climates and thinning forests led to bipedalism in both Homo and Paranthropus.

Yet there are clear differences with Homo. The big toe of P. boisei was shorter than ours, hinting at a slightly different gait – perhaps a slower, heavier stride. The smaller toes were straighter and stiffer than those of apes but not as refined as in Homo sapiens. This mosaic anatomy shows that upright walking had already been perfected in several human relatives, even if each did it in their own way.

The foot of P. boisei demonstrates that by 1.5 million years ago, bipedalism was a shared foundation rather than a unique advantage. Both Homo and Paranthropus walked tall; their evolutionary paths diverged not in locomotion but in lifestyle. While Homo relied increasingly on brainpower, tools and cooperation, Paranthropus doubled down on strength and chewing muscle. One lineage adapted to flexibility, the other to endurance – and in the end, only one survived.

But the discovery also softens the old story of triumph and failure. Paranthropus boisei wasn’t a “failed” hominin relative. It was a successful species in its own right, perfectly adapted to its ecological niche for well over a million years. The new fossils remind us that human evolution wasn’t a straight march of progress but a branching bush of experiments – some favouring brains, others brawn, all walking upright beneath the same African sun.

Sally Christine Reynolds 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. Fossil hand from human relative puzzles scientists with mix of human- and gorilla-like features – https://theconversation.com/fossil-hand-from-human-relative-puzzles-scientists-with-mix-of-human-and-gorilla-like-features-267871

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Beverley O’Hara, Lecturer in Nutrition, Leeds Beckett University

The 2025 Joe Wicks documentary on “killer protein bars” highlights how even well-intentioned attempts to raise awareness about food can sometimes oversimplify complex public health issues. The show’s premise – to develop and market a supposedly “dangerous,” additive-laden “ultra-processed” food to prompt government action – aims to spark debate about the modern food system.

But framing foods as inherently “dangerous” risks distorting the science and adding to public confusion about nutrition.

Stoking fear around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) often provokes psychological resistance, leading people to ignore health messages altogether or, paradoxically, to double down on the behaviour being criticised. The “processed equals bad” narrative can also fuel guilt, anxiety and disordered eating and stigmatises foods that are widely eaten, particularly by people on lower incomes.

Read more:
Ultra-processed foods might not be the real villain in our diets – here’s what our research found

The misinformation in the show adds to what the World Health Organization calls an “infodemic” – the rapid spread of false or misleading health information. Nutrition has become one of the most misinformation-prone topics on social media, where personal opinion is often presented as scientific fact. A 2023 review found widespread inaccuracies in online dietary advice, adding to public confusion and distrust of science.

The evidence linking UPFs to poor health is far from conclusive. Systematic reviews show that many studies reporting associations between UPFs and disease rely on observational data rated as low or very low quality. This means it cannot prove that UPFs cause disease. The latest review of research found that the UPF category adds little scientific value when assessing links between diet and disease.

Yet even among scientists, there is no clear agreement on how to classify them. Research found that both consumers and nutrition experts struggled to consistently identify which foods met the criteria for being “ultra-processed”. Despite this uncertainty, around 65% of Europeans believe that UPFs are bad for their health.

Part of the problem lies in how the term is used. “Ultra-processed food” has become a catch-all phrase, often used to promote ideological views about modern food systems instead of being applied as a precise scientific category. The NOVA classification, which first introduced the concept, was intended as a research framework, not a moral ranking of foods. But, over time, it has been reinterpreted as a shorthand for “good” versus “bad” eating.

We have long understood that certain foods high in salt, sugar and saturated fat – traditionally called “junk food” – are not good for health. Rebranding these as UPFs adds little to that knowledge and risks distracting attention from the real structural issues that determine what people eat. These include the affordability of healthy foods, aggressive marketing of unhealthy ones and inequalities in time, income and access to cooking facilities.

Even governments can be influenced by simplistic narratives that attribute dietary problems to food processing itself rather than to social and economic policy. For example, critics argue that political discussions about banning UPFs can distract from more meaningful reforms that would make healthy foods affordable and accessible.

Why the UPF debate misses the point

Nutrition science is complex and evolves gradually. The anti-UPF narrative is appealing because it offers certainty in a world where people crave clear answers. But this makes the public especially vulnerable to misinformation. Turning preliminary findings into sensational headlines has always been profitable for the wellness industry. It sells books, builds brands and boosts online followings.

More concerning is how easily this kind of messaging drifts into conspiracy thinking, where “Big Food” and “Big Science” are portrayed as villains. Emotionally charged language, such as calling sugar “poison”, encourages fear and mistrust of science. The food industry becomes a caricature of evil, accused of deliberately creating “addictive” and “dangerous” foods to harm consumers.

This narrative is not only misleading but also harmful. It undermines legitimate food science and public health research that could help develop sustainable, nutritious options for the future. The same sector that produces unhealthy convenience foods also employs scientists and innovators working on healthier, more sustainable products.

The future of healthy eating will depend on technologies such as plant-based proteins, fermentation and novel food production methods. Creating fear around food processing discourages this progress and makes it harder to tackle global nutrition and climate challenges.

Time to move beyond the buzzword

Food choices are shaped not just by personal preference but by the systems people live in. Those with higher incomes and more flexibility can often resist systemic pressures. Most people cannot. For many households, processed foods provide convenience, affordability and stability. Shaming people for eating the foods they can afford or grew up with ignores the realities of everyday life.

A single parent working two jobs does not need to be told that their child’s breakfast cereal is “ultra-processed.” They need access to affordable, nutritious foods that fit their circumstances.

Public health communication requires expertise. A medical degree does not make someone a nutrition specialist, just as a dietitian would not claim to be a heart surgeon. Experts who speak publicly about nutrition should have appropriate qualifications and professional accreditation in public health nutrition.

People deserve advice that empowers them rather than confuses them. They need accurate, balanced information delivered by qualified professionals who understand the complexity of nutrition science. The way we talk about food matters. It shapes public opinion, health policy and the future of our food systems.

It may be time to move beyond the term “ultra-processed food.” What began as an attempt to describe modern diets has become a source of confusion, moral judgement and misplaced fear. The label no longer helps people make better choices. Instead, it risks turning important conversations about food, health and inequality into culture wars.

If we want to build a healthier and fairer food system, we must focus less on catchy labels and more on evidence, equity and education.

Beverley O’Hara 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. Why stigmatising UPFs could be doing more harm than good – https://theconversation.com/why-stigmatising-upfs-could-be-doing-more-harm-than-good-267711

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

In the run up to the launch of the latest series of The Kardashians, her new legal drama All’s Fair and the celebrations for her 45th birthday, Kim Kardashian made a very different kind of headline. She revealed that she had been diagnosed with a brain aneurysm.

Kardashian revealed her diagnosis in a teaser for The Kardashians Season 7, which includes footage of her undergoing an MRI scan believed to have identified the condition. So far, no details have been released about the type, size or location of the aneurysm, or whether it required treatment. It’s therefore unclear whether the finding represents a serious health threat or an incidental discovery; something that’s becoming increasingly common as more people undergo full-body scans or imaging for other reasons.

Read more:
Full-body scans to look for hidden disease are a bad idea – here’s why

An aneurysm is a widening or bulging of any artery in the body. It most commonly occurs in the aorta (the body’s main artery), as well as in arteries of the limbs, neck and brain. When the swelling affects arteries in the brain, it is known as a cerebral aneurysm.

Brain aneurysms can have devastating effects. The nerve cells in the brain are not designed to come into direct contact with blood. To protect them, the brain has a natural defence system called the blood brain barrier, which carefully regulates what can and cannot pass from the bloodstream into brain tissue.

The largest risk factor of developing a brain aneurysm is being female. These aneurysms are around 60% more common in women than in men, and this increases further after menopause. Oestrogen helps to keep blood vessels flexible; when its levels fall after menopause, blood vessels become more vulnerable to damage.

A family history of aneurysms also increases risk. Someone who has two first-degree relatives – that’s parents, children or siblings – who have experienced a ruptured aneurysm has an 11% higher chance of developing one themselves. This is because genetic factors influence the structure and strength of blood vessel walls, making some people more vulnerable to weakness and damage.

This genetic link is also seen in several connective-tissue disorders which change the structure and function of artery walls, increasing the likelihood of an aneurysm. These include Ehlers Danlos syndrome, which causes overly stretchy skin and joints and weakens connective tissues, including those in blood vessels; Marfan syndrome, which often leads to long limbs, flexible joints and a higher risk of heart and blood vessel problems; Loeys Dietz syndrome, a rare condition that causes arteries to twist and widen; and Neurofibromatosis type 1, which causes non-cancerous growths along nerves and can weaken blood vessel walls.

Lifestyle factors can also play a role in increasing aneurysm risk. Current and former smoking are both strongly linked to weakened blood vessels. Quitting smoking reduces the risk, but it does not completely remove it when compared with those who have never smoked. High cholesterol can also damage blood vessels and raise the likelihood of an aneurysm.

In Kardashian’s case, she has mentioned stress as a contributing factor. Although stress itself does not directly cause aneurysms, it can increase blood pressure. Persistent high blood pressure, whether brought on by emotional stress or underlying health issues such as certain types of kidney disease, can weaken and damage blood vessel walls, making aneurysms more likely to develop.

Recreational drug use can also contribute to aneurysm risk, although there is no suggestion that this is relevant in Kardashian’s case. Cocaine raises blood pressure while narrowing blood vessels in the brain. These combined effects push pressure within the brain’s arteries even higher, increasing the chance of aneurysm formation and rupture. Amphetamine and methamphetamine have similar effects, altering blood vessel diameter, raising blood pressure and driving inflammation that weakens vessel walls. These processes contribute to aneurysm formation and an increased rate of progression and rupture.

When an aneurysm does form, its effects depend largely on where it develops and whether it ruptures, which can make symptoms unpredictable and sometimes difficult to recognise.

Ruptured cerebral aneurysms often begin with a small leak of blood that causes a sudden, severe headache, often described as “the worst headache of my life” or a thunderclap headache. This may serve as a warning sign of a larger rupture that could occur hours, days or even weeks later. Other symptoms can include uncoordinated movements, nausea, vomiting and sudden changes in consciousness.

Unruptured cerebral aneurysms tend to cause a wider range of symptoms because the effects depend on where the aneurysm is developing. Nerves responsible for vision, balance, hearing, swallowing and speech all run close to major blood vessels in the brain, so even a small change in pressure can have noticeable effects.

Vision problems are common, presenting as double or partial loss of sight. Eye pain or difficulty moving the eyes due to muscle weakness, a stiff neck and ringing in the ears may also occur. Less common symptoms include neck pain and difficulty swallowing.

Because these symptoms overlap with many other conditions, diagnosing an aneurysm can be challenging. Unruptured aneurysms often grow slowly and may not cause symptoms until they reach a certain size, while ruptured aneurysms appear suddenly and require emergency treatment.

Once discovered, aneurysms are measured and categorised. The smaller the aneurysm, the lower the risk of rupture. Those with a diameter under 7mm are least likely to rupture, those between 7mm and 12mm are considered medium, 12mm to 25mm are large, and anything over 25mm is classed as giant. The size and location of the aneurysm are key factors in determining its risk. Aneurysms on arteries at the base of the brain carry a higher chance of rupture.

Treatment depends on individual circumstances, and not all aneurysms require intervention. In fact, many people live healthily with small aneurysms without ever realising they have them. There are growing detection rates as imaging becomes more common and less invasive, and AI is also being used to improve accuracy. Small, symptom-free aneurysms are often monitored with regular imaging scans, especially in people with few additional risk factors. Treating underlying conditions such as high blood pressure can reduce the risk of rupture.

Those cerebral aneurysms that rupture or are at high risk of rupture require surgical intervention. The two most common procedures are clipping and endovascular repair. Clipping is a more invasive operation that involves opening the skull to access the aneurysm directly, and it is better suited to certain aneurysm locations.

Endovascular repair is less invasive and involves inserting a catheter through a blood vessel in the leg, guiding it into place and delivering a coil that prevents blood from entering the aneurysm. These coils are usually made of platinum and measure between half the width of a human hair to twice the width.

Because aneurysms are often silent until they reach a critical point, any sudden or unexplained neurological symptoms should always be assessed by a medical professional.

Adam Taylor 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. Kim Kardashian’s brain aneurysm diagnosis: what it means and who is most at risk – https://theconversation.com/kim-kardashians-brain-aneurysm-diagnosis-what-it-means-and-who-is-most-at-risk-268397