English – Page 399 – MIL Submissions Engine

September 18, 2025

US strikes on Venezuelan ‘drug boats’ have killed 14 people. What is Trump trying to do?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Philip Johnson, Lecturer, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University

A screenshot of a video reportedly showing an airstrike on a boat. Donald Trump/Truth Social

In the past few weeks, the United States military has been involved in multiple fatal strikes on boats in international waters off the coast of Venezuela.

The first airstrike was on September 5 and killed 11 people. The second occurred this week, killing three people. No efforts were made to apprehend the vessels or identify the people before the strikes.

President Donald Trump has claimed the boats and the people on them were trafficking illegal drugs bound for the US, dubbing them “narcoterrorists”.

The White House has provided little detail about the attacks in general, and no evidence the boats were trafficking drugs. It’s possible they weren’t.

Here’s what’s going on in the region and what might happen next.

Why is this happening now?

During the 2024 presidential election campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to crack down on immigration from Latin America.

He often drew a connection between crime and immigration, especially from Haiti and Venezuela (though some of the cases of gang crime he cited have since been questioned or debunked).

Once in office, Trump declared a number of gangs as terrorist organisations, including one Venezuelan group, Tren de Aragua.

The Trump government has claimed that Venezuelans deported from the US were members of Tren de Aragua, often without much substantial evidence.

Trump has also entertained the idea of using the US military to target criminal groups.

This is now reality, through a large military buildup deploying multiple warships, submarines and fighter jets to the Caribbean.

A tumultuous history

This is the latest chapter in a long and sometimes hostile relationship between Venezuela and the US.

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, affording the country political and economic influence within the region. This has made Venezuela a valued ally, and sometimes a competitor, to the United States.

But for the past two decades or so, relations have been more antagonistic.

When left-wing populist President Hugo Chavez was in power in Venezuela in 2002, the US was accused of giving tacit approval to a coup attempt against him.

America has also imposed economic sanctions against the country since 2005. These particularly ramped up under Trump’s first administration against Chavez’s successor and current president, Nicolas Maduro.

While less popular than his predecessor, Maduro remains extremely powerful. US attempts to destabilise his government, including one in 2019, have been unsuccessful.

Although many in Venezuela would welcome a change of government, any US intervention in the region is likely to be immensely unpopular. It provides a nationalist rallying point for Maduro: a way to boost his local support.

What do we know about the gang?

Trump claims both boats were operated by the Tren de Aragua gang.

The group started in Venezuelan prisons before spreading across other Latin American countries, primarily through people fleeing Maduro’s authoritarian regime.

Estimates of the size of the gang are contested and hard to measure, but best guesses put it at around 5,000 members.

Tren de Aragua members have been identified in 16 US states, but there has been little conclusive evidence of large-scale criminal or terrorist activity. In New York, Tren de Aragua has primarily been associated with retail theft.

Why is the US bombing boats?

Destroying individual boats is unlikely to have an impact on drug trafficking into the US. Most fentanyl, for example, is trafficked into the US over land borders by US citizens.

However, bombing the boats does reinforce the idea of an existential threat to the United States that can only be defeated with violence. The same sense of threat is used to justify the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans to brutal prisons in El Salvador.

The Venezuelan government is of less concern to Trump. Indeed, the White House has authorised increased imports of Venezuelan oil in recent weeks.

Others within the US government are more committed to regime change in Venezuela. For Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, the military operations are a direct effort to destabilise what he sees as an illegitimate Venezuelan regime.

Is it legal?

These airstrikes are the first unilateral US military action in Latin America since the invasion of Panama in 1989.

However, the military operations fit within a much longer history of overt and covert intervention in the region.

Scholars have said the decision to attack the boats was likely illegal under the law of the sea.

The US government justifies the attack in the broadest terms: Venezuelan gangs traffic drugs that can kill American citizens, therefore any violence is warranted to prevent this. This is an argument not about legality, but urgent security.

Impunity is the larger point, a display of power in itself. After the first strike, Vice President JD Vance declared “I don’t give a shit what you call it”.

Trump and Rubio have both asserted the strikes will continue, without concern for the possibility that they could be considered war crimes.

Without a clear prospect of legal jeopardy, the strikes will remain available as a way to project US power. The strikes will likely stop, or pause, when the government wants to claim that it has achieved some victory.

Philip Johnson 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 strikes on Venezuelan ‘drug boats’ have killed 14 people. What is Trump trying to do? – https://theconversation.com/us-strikes-on-venezuelan-drug-boats-have-killed-14-people-what-is-trump-trying-to-do-265481

September 18, 2025

‘To my happy surprise, it grew beyond my imagination’: Robert Redford’s Sundance legacy

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jenny Cooney, Lecturer in Lifestyle Journalism, Monash University

Robert Redford at The Filmmakers’ Brunch during 2005 Sundance Film Festival. George Pimentel/WireImage

When Robert Redford launched the Utah-based Sundance Institute in 1981, providing an independent support system for filmmakers named after his role in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), it would transform Hollywood and become his biggest legacy.

Redford, who has passed away age 89, was already a huge movie icon when he bought land and created a non-profit space with a mission statement “to foster independent voices, champion risky, original stories, and cultivate a community for artists to create and thrive globally”.

Starting with labs, fellowships, grants and mentoring programs for independent filmmakers, he finally decided to launch his own film festival in nearby Park City, Utah in 1985.

“The labs were absolutely the most important part of Sundance and that is still the core of what we are and what we do today,” Redford reflected during my last sit-down with him in 2013 at the Toronto International Film Festival, while promoting his own indie, All is Lost.

After the program had been running for five years, he told me

I realised we had succeeded in doing that much, but now there was nowhere for them to go. So, I thought, ‘well, what if we created a festival, where at least we can bring the filmmakers together to look at each other’s work and then we could create a community for them?’ And then, to my happy surprise, it grew beyond my imagination.

That’s putting it mildly. An astonishing list of filmmakers can all thank Redford for their career breakthroughs. Alumni of the Sundance Institute include Bong Joon-ho (who workshopped early scripts at Sundance labs before Parasite), Chloé Zhao and Taika Waititi, who often returns as a mentor.

Three people on a stage — President and founder of Sundance Institute Robert Redford, executive director of Sundance Institute Keri Putnam and Sundance Film Festival director John Cooper during the 2018 festival.
Nicholas Hunt/Getty Images

First films that debuted at the festival include Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs (1992), Steve Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989), Richard Linklater’s Slackers (2002), Paul Thomas Anderson’s Cigarettes and Coffee (1993), Nicole Holofcener’s short film Angry (1991), Darren Aronofsky’s Pi (1998) and Damian Chazelle’s Whiplash (2014).

Australian films which recently made their Sundance debut include Noora Niasari’s Shayda (2023), Daina Reid’s Run, Rabbit, Run (2023) and Sophie Hyde’s Jimpa (2025).

Creating a haven

For anyone lucky enough to have attended Sundance in the early days, it was a haven for indie filmmakers. It was not uncommon to see “Bob”, as he was always known in person, walking down the main street on his way to a movie premiere or a dinner with young filmmakers eager for his advice.

Watching Redford portray Bob Woodward in the Watergate thriller All the President’s Men (1976) was one of my earliest inspirations for pursuing a career in journalism. Also, nurturing a crush since The Sting (1973) and The Way We Were (1973) made it hard not to be intimidated crossing paths with him in Park City.

Robert Redford and Andie MacDowell at the Sundance Film Festival in 2003.
Randall Michelson/WireImage

Bob, however, quickly made you forget the icon status. Soon, you’d just be chatting about a new filmmaker he was excited to support, or his environmental work (he served as a trustee for five decades on the non-profit organisation, Natural Resources Defense Council).

Everyone felt equal in that indie film world, and Redford was responsible for that atmosphere.

In 1994, I waited in a Main Street coffee shop for Elle MacPherson to ski off a mountain and do an interview promoting her acting role in the Australian film Sirens. Later that day, I commiserated over a hot chocolate with Hugh Grant as he complained about frostbitten toes from wearing the wrong shoes and finding himself trekking through a snowstorm to the first screening of Four Weddings and a Funeral.

In the early days, Sundance was a destination for film lovers, not hair and makeup people, inappropriately glamorous designer gowns or swag lounges.

The arrival of Hollywood

But eventually, there was no denying the clout of any film making it to Sundance, and Hollywood came knocking.

“In 1985, we only had one theatre and maybe there were four or five restaurants in town, so it was a much quieter, smaller place and over time it grew so incredibly the atmosphere changed,” Redford reflected during our interview.

Suddenly all these people came in to leverage off our festival and because we are a non-profit, we couldn’t do anything about it. We had what we called ‘ambush mongers’ coming in to sell their wares and give out swag and I’m sure there will always be those people, but we are strong enough to resist being overtaken by it.

The festival resisted but the infrastructure gave in. In 2027, the Sundance Film Festival will finally relocate to Boulder, Colorado after a careful selection process aimed at ensuring the spirit of Sundance remains.

Redford stepped back from being the public face of the festival in 2019, dedicating himself instead to spend more time with filmmakers and their projects. But he supported the move to Colorado, and said in his statement of the announcement

Words cannot express the sincere gratitude I have for Park City, the state of Utah, and all those in the Utah community that have helped to build the organization.

The spirit of Sundance lives on, but it just won’t be the same without Bob on the streets or in the movie theatres.

Jenny Cooney 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. ‘To my happy surprise, it grew beyond my imagination’: Robert Redford’s Sundance legacy – https://theconversation.com/to-my-happy-surprise-it-grew-beyond-my-imagination-robert-redfords-sundance-legacy-265478

September 18, 2025

Heat, air quality, insurance costs: how climate change is affecting our homes – and our health

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ang Li, ARC DECRA and Senior Research Fellow, NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Housing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

This year, ten days of extreme heat in Europe killed roughly 2,300 people, severe flooding on the New South Wales coast left more than 48,000 stranded, and wildfires in Los Angeles destroyed at least 16,000 homes and other buildings.

Events such as these signal what climate scientists have long warned: climate-related extremes are becoming more frequent and intense.

Poor housing can leave us more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. So in today’s warming world, it’s increasingly important our homes and our housing system are climate resilient. This means they must protect us from heatwaves, floods and bushfires, and keep out air pollutants. And the housing system must function to provide affordable and secure housing.

Location is important too. Australia’s first National Climate Risk Assessment, released this week, estimates 8.7% of residential buildings are in very high-risk areas (prone to hazards). This proportion is projected to increase to 13.5% by 2090 in a scenario with a high global warming level.

Housing and health are inextricably linked. In a new paper published in the Lancet Public Health, my colleagues and I identify several ways climate change affects our homes, and in turn, our health.

On a basic level, housing shields us from the elements. But when we look at the bigger picture, resilient housing and housing systems have a key role to play in helping us face the challenges of climate change.

How does climate change affect our homes and our health?

Climate change can lead to deterioration in the indoor conditions in our homes.

For example, extreme temperatures can compromise air quality by making building materials more likely to degrade and generate pollutants. Particulate matter and other hazardous air pollutants from bushfire smoke can infiltrate indoor environments. Both of these processes can contribute to poor indoor air quality. This is not to mention that extreme heat outside can lead to unbearable temperatures indoors.

Meanwhile, floods, storms and cyclones can cause structural and water damage to homes. This can expose occupants to toxins, for example from contaminated water, and increase the risk of allergic reactions, respiratory problems, and infectious diseases (such as water-borne and mosquito-borne diseases).

Climate change and housing security

The risks associated with climate change can also influence housing security and affordability.

Both housing insecurity and unaffordability are significant predictors of poor mental health and wellbeing, and both are already significant problems independent of climate change.

But a changing climate exacerbates these problems. Equally, the housing crisis leaves us more vulnerable to climate change.

Climate-related disasters put a strain on housing costs and general cost-of-living pressures. Residents may need to pay for maintenance and repairs alongside their mortgages and rental payments. Meanwhile, increasing extreme weather events push insurance premiums higher. All this puts pressure on housing affordability.

Extreme temperatures also increase the risk of energy poverty. Not being able to adequately heat or cool a home can negatively affect both physical and mental health for its occupants.

What’s more, climate-related disasters can drive forced relocation, with flow-on effects to health and wellbeing through disruption to family life, loss of income, gender-based violence, social disconnection, and reduced access to services.

Notably, the effects of climate change reduce the supply of affordable housing, especially affordable rentals, which are more likely to be damaged or lost from hazards, for example due to lower structural quality. Lower-income renters as a result find it harder to compete for the remaining stock.

There are also other examples showing the effects of climate change on housing are inequitable, with the consequences flowing disproportionately to less advantaged groups.

When areas with low climate risk become more desirable, this can drive up housing and other costs in an area. Climate “gentrification” can displace low-income households to higher risk and less protected areas. We’ve seen this happen in countries including the United States and Denmark.

What does climate-resilient housing look like?

Housing needs to protect people from the growing risks posed by climate change. In a physical sense, this means it must be robust enough to bear more intense weather conditions, be energy efficient, and have good thermal performance that allows for both ventilation and climate control.

To achieve this, climate-resilient housing should include features such as:

well-constructed foundations, walls and roofs
ventilation and insulation
energy-efficient cooling and heating
exterior shading and roof reflectivity
building materials that are fire- and heat-resistant.

Building codes need to be cognisant of the changing climate, while existing housing may need to be upgraded.

We’ve seen some signs of progress. For example, updates to the National Construction Code in recent years have accounted for the increasing impact of climate change, by raising energy efficiency and thermal performance standards, among other measures.

There is also a need for stronger tenant protection policies. Rental housing is disproportionately of poor quality, yet it houses a large portion of the more vulnerable people in the population. Minimum standards for rental housing must be climate resilient.

But housing people well isn’t just a question of the physical construction of homes.

Climate-resilient housing should be affordable, secure and provide residents the chance to access opportunities for work, education and social connection that sustain wellbeing.

So much public discussion has focused on the need to meet housing supply targets, but we can’t forget that people need to be housed well to flourish.

This article is part of a series, Healthy Homes.

Ang Li receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Heat, air quality, insurance costs: how climate change is affecting our homes – and our health – https://theconversation.com/heat-air-quality-insurance-costs-how-climate-change-is-affecting-our-homes-and-our-health-263278

September 18, 2025

A booming longevity industry wants to sell us ‘immortality’. There could be hidden costs

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

If you could, would you pay to live forever? Some Silicon Valley billionaires aren’t just making tech products – they’ve set their sights on immortality.

Social media is flooded with influencers promoting peptides, “functional” mushroom powders and other (often non-evidence-based) hacks said to maximise your lifespan. Some even claim to reverse your “biological age”.

The quest to live longer, look younger or just live one’s “best life” has become a booming industry, encompassing treatments as diverse as ice baths, saunas, cryotherapy chambers and even red light therapy.

But behind much of the marketing and social media posts are commercial interests willing to cater to a population fearful of ageing and dying.

Nobody lives forever

The key reason humans aren’t immortal hinges on evolution. This process favours genetic traits promoting successful reproduction and adaptation over those promoting unlimited lifespan for individuals.

The ancient Greeks told cautionary tales about life extension. Those who reached for immortality mostly found this came at a terrible cost. The mythical Tithonus, for example, was doomed to endless ageing and decline after being granted eternal life without eternal youth.

Fast forward to today, the longevity industry has the backing of venture capital funds, celebrity investors and pharmaceutical companies.

But much of this money is being funnelled into products and services with little or no evidence for how they actually improve health or lengthen lifespan.

In his well-publicised quest for life extension, US venture capitalist Bryan Johnson reportedly spends millions and undergoes constant medical testing with the impossible aim of never dying.

Johnson’s longevity regimen includes a hyper-controlled diet, hundreds of daily supplements and strict sleep and exercise routines. He has even received transfusions of his own son’s blood plasma.

We see three major problems with the longevity industry that are a cause for concern.

Profit before evidence

Innovation is central to the longevity industry, attracting an influx of Silicon Valley investors seeking to “hack” the ageing process. Yet, these innovations are infrequently backed by high-quality evidence.

For example, full-body MRI is marketed as a way to identify cancer and other abnormalities early before they are harder to treat. Yet, there is no evidence these scans improve health outcomes. Medical colleges around the world do not recommend full-body MRI in healthy individuals.

Tests like these can lead to “incidentalomas” – unexpected findings that may prompt unnecessary follow-up procedures, costs and anxiety.

The longevity industry pitches itself as a disruptive alternative to mainstream health care. But it still depends on that system to function. Scans, blood tests and experimental treatments inevitably flow back into hospitals and clinics for follow-up, specialist consultations and interventions.

This puts added strain on already stretched services – both financially and in terms of workforce – while arguably delivering little benefit to population health.

Technician analyses test tube in laboratory. — Unnecessary tests can divert precious resources from a health-care system already under strain.
Lourdes Balduque/Getty

Test and you shall find

Despite widespread public enthusiasm for screening tests, experts have long warned more testing does not always lead to better health.

One of the clearest risks is overdiagnosis – when an abnormality or disease is diagnosed that will never impact a person’s health during their lifetime. The more you test, the more you’ll find – much of it clinically irrelevant. This creates a self-affirming cycle.

Unnecessary investigations can result in overdiagnosis, incidental findings and potentially cascades of further unnecessary procedures or tests.

Longevity isn’t the same as prevention

Marketers of longevity claim their services and products are part of “preventive” medicine: spotting disease before it strikes and keeping people healthier for longer.

But the longevity movement differs drastically from the public health principle of prevention.

Prevention, in mainstream medicine, is about simple, evidence-based measures. This includes immunisations and screening for cancer at the right ages.

But there’s no clear evidence many of the exhaustive tests and treatments the longevity industry promotes improve long-term outcomes for otherwise healthy people.

They simply cost a lot of money, are resource intensive and may lead to further unnecessary testing.

Why this matters

By medicalising ageing, the longevity movement is a classic example of disease mongering. It also risks embedding ageism into everyday commerce – pathologising normal ageing rather than accepting it as part of life.

It also risks diverting attention and resources away from important and basic public health system functions that can improve quality of life for millions as we all gracefully age.

The hype around many unfounded longevity claims distracts us from what we already know works: regular exercise, healthy food, sound sleep, meaningful relationships and fair access to evidence-based medical treatment.

Samuel Cornell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Brooke Nickel receives fellowship funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). She is on the Executive Committee for Wiser Healthcare and the Scientific Committee of the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference.

Sean Docking 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. A booming longevity industry wants to sell us ‘immortality’. There could be hidden costs – https://theconversation.com/a-booming-longevity-industry-wants-to-sell-us-immortality-there-could-be-hidden-costs-264879

September 17, 2025

Weight loss drug semaglutide shown to be safe and potentially more effective at higher dose – new findings

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Whyte, Associate Professor of Metabolic Medicine, University of Surrey

These were the first trials to examine the effects of a 7.2mg dose of semaglutide on body weight. Caroline Ruda/ Shutterstock

A higher dose of the weight loss drug semaglutide (better known by its brand name Wegovy) may help people lose up to 25% of their body weight – without the risk of severe side-effects. These findings are based on the results of two recently published clinical trials.

Semaglutide has proven to be effective in helping people lose weight. But weight loss tends to plateau after about one year of use – even when taking the highest approved dose of the drug. This means patients may not reach their weight loss goals.

So researchers set out to understand whether a higher dose can be effective without the risk of severe side-effects.

In the first trial, researchers studied the effect of a 7.2mg dose of semaglutide in adults with obesity. This is three times the currently approved 2.4mg dose found in Wegovy. Participants were randomly assigned to either receive the higher dose, the standard dose or a placebo drug once a week for a period of 72 weeks.

Participants were also told to reduce their daily calorie intake by around 500 calories per day and increase the amount of physical activity they did each week (aiming for around 150 minutes).

The participants who received the 7.2mg dose lost an average of nearly 21% of their body weight – compared with 17.5% for those on the standard dose. Participants who took the placebo only lost 2.4% of their body weight. These figures are based on those who fully adhered to the treatment regimen.

Around 33% of the participants on the higher dose also experienced very high levels of weight loss – losing 25% or more of their total body weight. This is roughly double the proportion seen in the standard-dose group, where just under 17% achieved this degree of weight loss.

The participants who used semaglutide also saw greater improvements in their cardiometabolic health compared to those who only received the placebo.

As might be anticipated, side-effects were more common in people taking the higher dose of semaglutide than those taking the lower dose. The most common side-effects were gastrointestinal issues, such as nausea or diarrhoea. Around 3% of participants using the higher dose and 2% of participants using the standard dose stopped using the drug because of these gastrointestinal issues.

A second trial then investigated what effect a higher dose of semaglutide would have in people with type 2 diabetes.

It’s well established that people with type 2 diabetes tend to lose less weight on semaglutide compared to those without diabetes. It’s not currently known why this is. So the second trial sought to understand whether a higher dose of semaglutide would also have a significant effect on weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes.

Two vials of semaglutide, with a blue measuring tape wrapped around them. — The higher dose of semaglutide also helped people with type 2 diabetes lose more weight.
Edugrafo/ Shutterstock

This time they recruited 512 participants with obesity who also had type 2 diabetes. They used the exact same study design as they did in the previous study.

Those treated with 7.2mg of semaglutide lost just over 13% of their body weight. The standard dose group lost around 10% of their body weight, while the placebo group lost just under 4% of their total body weight.

Beyond weight loss, the 7.2mg dose of semaglutide brought measurable improvements in metabolic health. On average, waist circumference decreased by 6.5cm compared to the placebo group. Blood glucose levels (HbA1c, a measure of diabetes control) also fell by nearly 2% in those taking the higher dose.

Gastroinstestinal problems were again the most commonly experienced side-effects in those taking semaglutide – with around 6% of the study’s participants stopping the trial because of these side-effects.

Patient benefit

Semaglutide promotes weight loss by mimicking the body’s natural GLP-1 hormone, which helps regulate blood sugar and appetite. These drugs act on brain pathways that control energy balance and food intake, leading to reduced hunger and an earlier sense of fullness (satiety) after eating. This can help people to eat less, leading to weight loss.

Higher doses of semaglutide lead to greater weight loss by more strongly activating the brain regions that control appetite, resulting in reduced hunger and increased feelings of fullness. They also slow stomach emptying more effectively, helping to decrease overall food intake.

The results from these two trials show that a higher dose of semaglutide is both safe to use and very effective. Being able to use a higher dose of semaglutide offers more options for patients when it comes to managing their weight and controlling their blood sugar. It also gives an option to people who may not respond to the standard 2.4mg dose or whose weight loss may plateau.

These findings also show that semaglutide can compete against other weight loss drugs, such as tirzepatide (Mounjaro). In an earlier head-to-head trial, a 10gm-15mg dose of tirzepatide resulted in a 20% loss of body weight in participants – while a standard dose of semaglutide only resulted in an approximately 14% loss in body weight. But these recent studies now show that a higher dose of semaglutide can lead to comparable levels of weight loss.

These results may also raise questions about whether dose escalation may become a future standard of care in obesity treatment.

Martin Whyte 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. Weight loss drug semaglutide shown to be safe and potentially more effective at higher dose – new findings – https://theconversation.com/weight-loss-drug-semaglutide-shown-to-be-safe-and-potentially-more-effective-at-higher-dose-new-findings-265312

September 17, 2025

Fed rate cut is attempt to prevent recession without sending prices soaring

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ryan Herzog, Associate Professor of Economics, Gonzaga University

The Fed’s job can seem like a balancing act. Dimitri Otis/DigitalVision via Getty Images

The Federal Reserve on Sept. 17, 2025, cut its target interest rate as it shifts focus from fighting inflation to supporting the choppy labor market.

As financial markets expected, the Fed lowered rates a quarter point to a range of 4% to 4.25%, its first cut since December 2024.

The Fed’s decision to begin cutting rates comes as evidence mounts that the U.S. labor market is losing momentum. The headline unemployment rate has stayed steady at near record lows, but the underlying trends are more concerning.

At the same time, the fight against inflation is not over yet. While a cooling jobs market could lead to a recession, cutting rates too much could drive inflation higher.

So if you’re the Fed, what do you do?

I’m an economist who tracks labor market data and monetary policy, examining how changes in hiring, wages and unemployment influence the Federal Reserve’s efforts to steer the economy. There’s an incredibly large amount of data the Fed, investors, economists like me and many others use to understand the state of the economy – and much of it often tells conflicting stories.

Here are some the data points I’ve been following most closely to better understand where the U.S. economy might go from here – and the tough choices the Fed has to make.

a bespectacled white man in a suit stands before a podium with a micrphone — Fed Chairman Jerome Powell speaks during a news conference after the rate-cut decision.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Underlying trouble in the labor market

The labor market looks stable on the surface, but more granular data tells a different story.

The unemployment rate has remained close to historic lows at 4.3% as of August 2025, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But the number of long-term unemployed – people out of work for 27 weeks or longer – rose to 1.9 million in August, up 385,000 from a year earlier. These workers now make up 25.7% of all unemployed people, the highest share since February 2022. Persistent long-term joblessness often signals deeper cracks forming in the labor market.

At the same time, new claims for unemployment benefits are spiking. Initial claims for unemployment insurance – a leading indicator of labor market stress – jumped by 27,000 to 263,000 for the week ending Sept. 6, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. That’s the sharpest increase in months and well above economists’ forecasts. It suggests layoffs are becoming more common.

We also got news that past payroll growth was overstated. In a process the Bureau of Labor Statistics undertakes annually to double-check its data, the bureau recently revised its jobs data downward from April 2024 through March 2025 by 911,000. In other words, the economy created roughly 75,000 fewer jobs per month than previously reported. This implies the labor market was weaker than it appeared all along.

Finally, workers are losing confidence. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported in August that confidence in finding a job fell to its lowest level – 44.9% – since it started surveying consumers in June 2013. That’s another sign workers are feeling less secure about their prospects.

Taken together, these data points paint a clear picture: The labor market is not collapsing, but it is softening. That helps explain why the Fed is beginning to cut rates now – hoping to stimulate spending – before the job market breaks more sharply.

packages of bacon and other meat are on display in a grocery store — Prices of meat and other groceries have been on the rise recently.
Scott Olson/Getty Images

Tariffs are complicating the inflation data

Even as the labor market softens, tariffs are pushing certain prices higher than they otherwise would be, complicating the Federal Reserve’s effort to bring inflation down.

Government data shows that businesses have begun passing the costs of President Donald Trump’s new import tariffs to consumers. In August, clothing prices rose 0.5% and grocery prices rose 0.6%, with especially strong gains for tariff-sensitive items such as coffee.

Lower-income households are getting hit hardest because they spend more of their budget on imported goods, which tend to be the lower-cost items most affected by tariffs. A report from the Yale Budget Lab found that core goods prices are about 1.9% above pre-2025 trends as tariffs raise costs for basic items such as appliances and electronics.

Phillip Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said recently that Trump’s tariffs have pushed inflation higher than CBO analysts had expected, even as overall economic activity has weakened since January.

Typically, a slowdown in the labor market is met with slower inflation. But while the CBO now projects that the tariffs will reduce the federal budget deficit by about US$4 trillion over the next decade – roughly $3.3 trillion in new revenue and $700 billion in lower debt service costs – but it will come at the cost of near-term upward pressure on prices.

This creates a difficult balancing act for the Fed: Cut rates too quickly, and tariff-driven price pressures could reignite inflation; move too slowly, and the softening labor market could tip into recession.

a bespectacled white man in a vest look on as a tv screen shows news of fed rate cut behind him — Traders react to the Fed news.
AP Photo/Richard Drew

A narrow path to a soft landing

As it resumes cutting rates, the Federal Reserve is trying to thread a narrow needle – easing policy enough to keep the labor market from cracking while not reigniting inflation, which is proving stickier in part because of tariffs.

Markets are betting the Fed will keep cutting. The futures market is betting the Fed will cut rates by another half point by the end of the year. And the one-year Treasury yield has dropped about 150 basis points (1.5%) since June, signaling that investors expect a series of rate cuts through 2025 and into 2026.

At its latest meeting, the Fed signaled two more rate cuts in 2025 and at least one rate cut in 2026.

Such cuts would ultimately bring the federal funds rate closer to 3% and hopefully reduce 30-year mortgage rates to around 5% – from an average of 6.35% as of Sept. 11. If the labor market continues to weaken – with jobless claims climbing, payrolls revised down and more workers stuck in long-term unemployment – that expectation will likely harden into consensus.

But the path is far from certain. Cutting rates too quickly could cause inflation to spike, while going too slow could lead to further deterioration in the labor market. Either outcome would jeopardize the Fed’s credibility – whether by appearing unable to control prices or by allowing unemployment to rise unnecessarily. That would undermine its ability to influence markets and enforce its dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices.

Another tricky issue is Trump’s public campaign to push the Fed to cut rates – appearing to do his bidding could also undercut Fed credibility. For what it’s worth, the Sept. 17 rate cut appears driven less by politics than by economic data. The Fed itself was projecting a year ago that rates would be much lower today than they actually are, suggesting it’s been following the data.

The economy appears to be slowing but remains resilient, which is why the Fed is likely to move gradually. The risk is that the window for a soft landing is closing. The coming months will determine whether the Fed can ease early enough to avoid recession, or whether it has already waited too long.

Ryan Herzog does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Fed rate cut is attempt to prevent recession without sending prices soaring – https://theconversation.com/fed-rate-cut-is-attempt-to-prevent-recession-without-sending-prices-soaring-265370

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

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