Finland is doubling down on evidence from four years ago that definitively shows how children can avoid diseases and allergies throughout their lives if they’re permitted to get down and dirty in daycare. Dozens of comparative studies have previously found that children who live in rural areas and are in contact with nature have a […] The post A Daycare Rewilded its Yard and the Children Became Healthier: Now the Whole Nation Is Doing it appeared first on Good News Network.

News Stranger Things: Tales From ’85 Stranger Things: Tales From ’85 Animated Spinoff Footage Reveals a Snowy, Demogorgon-Filled Hawkins The animated series is expected to come out in 2026. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on November 6, 2025 Courtesy of Netflix Comment 0 Share New Share Courtesy of Netflix In case you were worried, the final installment of Stranger Things headed to us at the end of this year is far from the last we’ll see of the Stranger Things franchise. Starting in 2026, there will be an animated series set in Hawkins called Stranger Things: Tales From ’85. It’s a winter tale that takes place between seasons two and three of the original show. We got our first look at the series today in a behind-the-scenes teaser, where showrunner Eric Robles and Stranger Things co-creators Matt and Ross Duffer give it praise. “With animation there’s really no limits,” Ross Duffer says in the clip. “Eric and his team can just go wild… and they have.” Robles also said in the video that the series will show “the magic of Hawkins in a new way.” We see some of that animation style in the clip as well, along with the news that the idea was to “evoke a feeling of an ‘80s cartoon.” Given what we see, however, that’s not really the vibe I get, though the animation does look pretty good. Tales From ’85 is voiced by different actors than the live-action series, with Brooklyn Davey Norstedt as Eleven, Jolie Hoang-Rappaport as Max, Luca Diaz as Mike, Elisha “EJ” Williams as Lucas, Braxton Quinney as Dustin, Ben Plessala as Will, and Brett Gipson as Hopper. Odessa A’zion, Janeane Garofalo, and Lou Diamond Phillips also lend their voices to the show. The show is set to come out sometime in 2026. Check out the first look clip below. [end-mark] The post <i>Stranger Things: Tales From ’85</i> Animated Spinoff Footage Reveals a Snowy, Demogorgon-Filled Hawkins appeared first on Reactor.

Excerpts Fairy Tales Read an Excerpt From A Forest, Darkly by A.G. Slatter A dark fantasy fairy tale of persecuted witches, snatched children, twisted magic, changelings, and the sins that bind… By A.G. Slatter | Published on November 6, 2025 Comment 0 Share New Share We’re thrilled to share an excerpt from A Forest, Darkly, a standalone story set in the Sourdough universe by A.G. Slatter, publishing with Titan Books on February 10, 2026. Deep in the forest lives Mehrab the witch, coping with loneliness in her own strange ways and quietly battling her demons. One evening, a young woman appears on her doorstep seeking shelter, pursued by godhounds who wish to destroy all those practising magic, and Mehrab’s solitary existence is disrupted as she teaches the girl how to control her powers. Together they forge a cure for their isolation with heartbreaking consequences…Meanwhile, in the local village, children begin to disappear, sometimes returning forever changed—or not returning at all. Sinister offerings appear on Mehrab’s doorstep, and a dark power pursues her through the trees. As the villagers turn hostile and the godhounds close in, Mehrab finds herself at the centre of a struggle to save the soul of the forest, the life of an old love—and her own new-formed family. Homes in the Great Forest—in it, around it, even several leagues from its very outer edges—are wont to have protections not found in other regions. Carvings of tutelary spirits, either one or two, are generally affixed to dwellings, hewn above lintels, around door- and window frames, sometimes into the very doors themselves, even on stoops. In locations where the populace is particularly superstitious—or particularly experienced with such things—each door and window and chimney has this talisman. There’s such a cottage at Briga’s Leap, in the west. It’s deserted, now, and a curtain of leaves and vines of brightest green hangs on either side of the front entrance, but the two heads (foliate) carved into the doorframe by he who made this tiny house (himself now dust and forgotten) are not hidden.In spring, pink and purple flowers (of a variety unknown elsewhere) bloom and the twins are crowned with delicate blossoms. Their features are strikingly similar, but for their expressions: she to the right wears a benign smile and graces the world with a gentle, knowing gaze; her sister to the left presents an astonishingly baleful glare. Her face is older too, as if she has lived a life, seen too much, given too much, had too much taken from her. Received too little in return.Above, in the centre of the lintel is a third head, entirely covered by foliage, and seen only if one digs around (as your correspondent did). A child this one, expression clean, innocent, guileless. Concealed as she is, her secret remains: that she still bears what the others have either never had, or lost through the workings of curious fingers, rough hands, the elements and years: horns. On her forehead they sit proudly, budding, but definite.Although the twins have been called “green women” or “green maids”—conflated perhaps with the myth of the Green Man—they are perhaps nothing to do with him. The horned one above surely is not. She is a hind-girl.Hind-girls, creatures who reject the roles the world would give them, who will live beneath no roof nor within any walls, who dance along the narrow forest trails. Sometimes they throw their heads with such abandon that the antlers of one get caught in those of another, but their feet are sure on paths of beaten earth for they know such ways of old.The twins, however? Perhaps they are indeed green women? They say that, once, there were many scattered through the Great Forest. Some say she—or they—disappeared, wearied by the ways of the world, or simply that she—or they—hibernates at whim, or when she feels a need, or when things become too dangerous for her to roam her forests. Mother Muriel’s Tales of Gods and Unearthly Things(unpublished, original manuscript accessioned to the Library of the University of Whitebarrow) Chapter One I don’t generally, as a rule, get lost. Or at least not in these woods, or rather my part. I know them, as the saying goes, like the back of my hand. I’ve wandered here for the better part of two decades, learning their paths, open or otherwise, the hiding places above and below, where its pools and ponds and rills wait and run, where the herbs and mushrooms grow best and thickest, where the oak saplings are at their finest and strongest, where sun and moon fail to shine and where they sometimes brighten both day and night. Unsuspected barrows and highest tors that poke above the tree canopy, stone circles where magic more ancient than memory sleeps until it’s woken, places where older gods wait, grown still and stiff with passing time, forgetful of their purpose. Or so it’s said. Never met one myself, or not to my knowledge. Yet here I am, adrift in a dappled clearing that I cannot seem to escape. The day passing me by in leaps and bounds as I tread in circles, a penitents’ path I neither willingly joined nor suspected. Some sort of faery trap into which I tripped and all the profanity in the world cannot cut me loose. A fly in a spider’s web. How long’s it been here, waiting? Who laid it? Here? So deep and dark, so far off the beaten trails where even I’d not have come, except I was following that bloody hare for my stew pot, and hasn’t it had its revenge? Disappeared before I could even draw my bow… Trickster thing. Or merely an animal that’s smarter than me. The latter is most likely. I’m not normally so careless, but something gripped me and I ran along with it; I stay fit with work around the holding, tramping the forest and foraging for ingredients medicinal and flavoursome. But I’m no great huntress—meat comes to me in the snares I set, the villagers and rare travellers who bring offerings for aid, for medicaments, for readings to guide their future or find direction—but such barters have been rare in recent days and my snares empty. Mostly, I provide small magics only because it’s never a good idea to let people know exactly what you can do. Something I didn’t realise when I was young, which is precisely how you (I) get into trouble. But in my middle years… well, I’m not normally such an idiot. Yet here I sit, having given up on trying to walk my way out of this blasted circle because all paths lead me back to the centre. Buy the Book A Forest, Darkly A.G. Slatter Buy Book A Forest, Darkly A.G. Slatter Buy this book from: AmazonBarnes and NobleiBooksIndieBoundTarget At first glance I’d thought it merely a disturbance in the ground, dug up by badgers or the like. At second glance, a penitents’ path such as one finds in the great cathedrals. Third and final (and too late) glance—the only one with proper attention paid, I recognised it for what it was: a maze, ploughed into the forest floor, left like a raised scar, the rough spiral pattern turning back and forth on itself, but with no exit. I’d already stepped over the outer border and was stuck in its warp and weft. And I’d run so far from home, so far from any chance of my shouts being heard had there been another person in my cottage (which there’s not); so far I’d gone past the Black Lake, even, a place I seldom visit more than once a year. Around me, the forest, dark and quiet—not a peep from bird or bee, fox or badger; no giggle of a stream running nearby, nor even wind skipping through the branches though I can see it moving the leaves. So: an enchantment here, and not a good one. I scan the undergrowth, the trees, looking for any sign of something that might be watching me and waiting for a moment’s inattention, but there’s nothing out of the ordinary, other than the sense that this is a trap laid with intent. Not necessarily to trap me, but anyone or anything foolish enough to wander this far from the village (so perhaps me, dumber than a hare). Or even those from any of the outlying cottages, the few tiny forest farms. When will its maker come back? How many such traps await? How often does whoever or whatever set it check it? Or is that person or creature a long-gone thing, and only these snares remain? Or do they bide their time? Not knowing is frustrating and while the years have taught me better to keep my temper (or at least hide it), I’ve been sat in this cage without bars for almost two hours according to the movement of the sun. The rage isn’t a sudden thing, although it feels like it could be, except I know it’s been building, fuelled by vexation, that sense of being held against my will. And the memory of that very thing happening has left a mark, indelible, a well from which fury can and does bubble more and more frequently nowadays and, with a profanity, I draw my iron knife and plunge it into the heart of the maze. Blessed iron, so thoroughly grounded, so thoroughly mundane that anything eldritch cannot bear it. So weighty that it drags the unreal into the real world, makes it visible. Solid. A hittable target. I feel rather than hear a roar, a growl, and I’m up immediately, sprinting for the edge of the circle. Then, at last, I break out, my steps no longer magic-led back into the centre. Free, I turn and spit into the trap. So there. In that moment, I feel the weight of a gaze, pushing the air downwards, seeking and searching—when it passes over me I’m fool enough to breathe a sigh of relief that I’ve been missed. Which is when it doubles back, that strange gaze, and falls like an avalanche, pins me to the earth, lies upon me like a night-hag trying to steal my breath. I’m very still, although it’s not as if I have much of a choice. Abruptly, the weight’s gone. It stayed long enough to make a point, but not long enough to kill me. No. It just wanted me to know that I’d been found. * * * The closer I get to home, the better I feel, although simultaneously more irked. I can’t deny that some irritation stems from the fact that, usually, I’m the worst thing in the woods (bears and wolves notwithstanding) and I like it that way. The further I am from that particular patch of the woodlands, the safer it seems; I’d wandered much further than I’d meant to, and I might be fooling myself, but my cottage is warded and protected against any number of threats. It’s a secure place. Whatever waits out there would be hard pressed to get in. I hope. Maybe it’ll forget me. Maybe something else will take its attention. Maybe it’s time to run. That thought grates. I ran once before; I ran so far and for so long. This was where I came to rest. This was the place that welcomed me and let me forget the things I’d done. I’ll not give it up, or at least not easily. Whatever’s in the forest can’t be worse than what I fled. What I did. Thus, I will stay. I’ll pretend it never happened, and life will continue as it has for the past twenty years. Yet as I approach my cottage, with its barn and gardens and tiny field for just enough crops, I hear voices, arguing, and it suddenly feels as if this day is the start of worse ones to come. * * * Bright blonde curls, summer-blue eyes, a heart-shaped face and trim figure, wrapped in a travel-stained sapphire silk brocade dress, heeled boots with bows and golden cloak—the girl is not exactly dressed for camouflage. Even with limp locks, grit on her skin, shadows under her eyes and reeking of perspiration, she’s a beauty, sitting on a bench seat in the little rose garden, staring across my holding, gaze fixed on the pond and the stream that flows into it. Her companion, her minder, throws exasperated glances at her as we speak, and this woman—whom I’ve known a very long time, and to whom I owe much—tries to convince me that this girl must be my next fosterling. As yet, I’ve not let them into my home. My white-washed cottage, its angles slightly odd. The interior bright, surprisingly roomy, kitchen, bathroom, sitting room and workroom on the ground level; a cellar below that. The first floor has two bedrooms, and a third in the attic. It’s a sanctuary, and I’ll not easily let others over the threshold. Witches in trouble oft find their way to dark forests and this is one of the darkest. One of the largest, hence “the Great Forest”. A good place to hide. We live away from the churches and the god-hounds who serve in them. We keep ourselves hidden as well as we may; we’re self-sufficient, making what we can, trading with the tinkers who roam the countryside and sometimes venture beneath the trees for what we cannot. Or bargaining with the isolated farmsteads or villages where our talents are needed (potions and powders for sickness and health, fertility or otherwise for women with already too many mouths to feed, or solutions for wives with husbands not man enough to behave like decent human beings). We’re easier to find than doctors in such remote spots, and more reliable, for what we do sticks. No placebos come from the hand of a hedgewitch or henwife. It’s grown too hard to live in the cities, too hard to hide what we are, and even those of us who don’t make weight on the witch’s scale, those untouched by power, light or dark, still aren’t safe. It’s too hard to be a cunning woman or even a simple henwife when either term might so easily be pronounced “witch”. Out here we can be safe—we can’t all have the privilege of the Briars of Silverton. We’ve been hunted, yet we survive and sometimes parents and friends who love more than they fear send girls like this one to women like me. Sometimes girls like her go back home eventually; sometimes they can’t. This one, Rhea, can’t apparently, and Fenna has spent the last ten minutes trying to cajole me into helping. To open my home. She speaks at normal volume, the girl hearing everything that’s said about her, some of which is not flattering, and this tells me Fenna is at the end of her tether, and any thought of protecting feelings has long fallen by the wayside. ‘Mehrab, please. Yes, she’s sulky and stubborn, but she’s also afraid. Give her a week, she’ll settle. If she doesn’t then send her away. Once she realises there’s this or fending for herself, she’ll buckle under.’ Will she though? I look from Fenna with her greying hair with a thick white streak at the widow’s peak, hard lined face, dark cloak over trews and shirt of browns and greens and greys—a woman who knows how to blend in—to the girl with all her golden beauty; weigh the trouble this will cause me. I’ve not fostered in some years, have become used to solitude and my own ways. Grumpy and impatient, I’ve been quite happy sinking into this stage of life. This Rhea looks like hard work. ‘Where’s she from?’ ‘Lodellan.’ Something in her expression tells me there’s more. ‘How bad was it?’ ‘An insistent suitor.’ ‘And?’ ‘Later,’ she says in a low voice. I look at the girl on the bench, patting the fat tabby cat that had wandered out of the forest though Mr Tib stayed, though not invited to, even after I treated him roughly to make sure he was no shifter. I did name him, and that’s my own fault for giving such encouragement. I raise my voice a little: ‘Girl, what can you do?’ A defiant gaze turns on me; she holds one hand palm up and in a trice there’s a single blue flame of witch-fire dancing there. Mr Tib hisses and scarpers—not from the craft, but the flame, so close. She holds my stare, does this Rhea, and I know I should say No. I should say Take her elsewhere, Fenna! But I don’t. There’s something in her face that reminds me of another’s—not the looks, no, but the expression, the air. A sadness at the heart of the insolence. (A voice in my head whispers Be bold, be bold but not too bold, and another replies Be as bold as you like!)It reminds me of my debt to another, unpaid. The force of that failure presses the word ‘Alright’ from my mouth and makes me nod. I can’t help but think it’s the worst decision I’ve ever made—but I know that’s not true. Excerpted from A Forest, Darkly, copyright © 2025 by A.G. Slatter. The post Read an Excerpt From <i>A Forest, Darkly</i> by A.G. Slatter appeared first on Reactor.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plans to rewrite the rules concerning pharmaceutical advertising is hardly novel. Every few years Washington revives this perennial idea—typically proffered to “save” money or “protect” patients from “misleading” messaging.  But as a former First Amendment lawyer who became chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration and later the general counsel of a leading pharmaceutical company, I state definitively: Direct-to-consumer drug advertising is already the most heavily regulated form of commercial speech in America. Since 1997, the FDA has required prominent disclosure of key risks in every broadcast spot, coupled with “adequate provision” for patients to access the full prescribing information. Those long, sometimes tedious recitations of risks are not corporate choices; they are federally mandated. For nearly three decades, this framework has survived precisely because it balances consumer access with practical realities of television, radio, and now digital advertising. But the administration’s efforts to amend that compromise have the potential to create a disclosure regime too burdensome and costly to justify advertising at all.  Put simply, no consumer-facing industry is required to meet anything close to the existing standard for drug companies, let alone anything more prohibitive. Car companies selling a new SUV do not need to list every conceivable accident risk. McDonald’s is not required to advertise the supposedly adverse effects of consuming fast food. But for medicines, FDA insists—and rightly, so—that every claim be truthful, non-misleading, and scientifically substantiated. These rigid standards make additional new regulation and restrictions unlikely to pass legal scrutiny, difficult to justify as “narrowly tailored,” as the First Amendment requires. More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court established that commercial speech, pharmaceutical advertising included, is protected under the First Amendment. Since then, the Court has consistently affirmed these protections to areas ranging from alcohol to gambling.   This Supreme Court, which has been deeply protective of free speech rights, will not allow Congress, the FDA, or a state legislature to precipitously curtail truthful advertising of medicines. Nor would an attempt to create a de facto ban through burdensome regulation survive.  Courts are also likely to consider the administration’s justifications for its restrictions, which suggest that the primary motivation is not public health, but rather reducing demand for drugs to harm the pharmaceutical industry. Kennedy’s longstanding animus toward “Big Pharma” and his frequent claims that America is “overmedicated” will no doubt loom large in challenges to seismic shifts in the current regulatory framework. The Supreme Court has not taken this issue lightly historically, striking down FDA restrictions on advertising by compounding pharmacies in Thompson v. Western States Medical Center. Direct-to-customer advertising can empower patients, reduce stigma, and connect people to treatment. Although critics assume it exists only to “juice utilization” of expensive brand-name drugs, in reality, it enables patients to be their own best advocates. By informing patients about conditions they might otherwise ignore, these ads are essential to preventive care. They also make patients more comfortable addressing sensitive topics related to mental and sexual health. As just one example, most Americans have a friend or loved one suffering from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or sleep apnea because of complications from obesity. Advertisements for GLP-1 weight loss medications, which have transformed modern health care, have been essential to informing those who can benefit most from this treatment. Without these ads, GLP-1s would remain a little-known lifeline for the wealthy and well-connected. Restricting health information rests on a slippery slope of government control. Countries that prohibit direct-to-customer advertising also ration access to new medicines. A RAND study found that of 287 drugs launched globally between 2008 and 2022, nearly three-quarters are available in the U.S., while less than half are available in Germany, and barely a quarter in Canada. Patients here not only know about new therapies sooner; they get access to them as Kennedy acknowledged in a Newsmax interview a few months ago. None of this is to say pharmaceutical ads are perfect. They can be clunky, repetitive, even annoying. But the solution is not censorship achieved through regulatory gymnastics. The FDA already has—and uses—ample authority to police false or misleading claims. At stake is not whether we like the ads, but whether we value the principle that truthful speech about lawful products deserves protection. The First Amendment is not an afterthought—it is the foundation. And in the case of drug advertising, it protects not just industry, but patients’ right to know about their options. After a pandemic in which Americans developed tremendous skepticism toward public health officials, an administration focused on restoring trust should not limit access to health information. Doing so would deprive patients of information, stifle transparency, and conflict with the Constitution. Efforts to sharply restrict direct-to-customer advertising are not only bad law; they’re bad policy. In medicine as in democracy, more information—not less—is the way forward. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Why More Regulation of Drug Ads Is Unnecessary—And Likely Unconstitutional appeared first on The Daily Signal.

We're Up to Six Cases of Chinese 'Researchers' Smuggling Bioweapons Into America

SCHUMER SHUTDOWN SALE: Don't Miss Out Before the Dems Cave!

'Allahu Akbar' Ringing Out in Birmingham, England...Over a Soccer Match

MRC Free Speech America exposed Wikipedia for creating an effective blacklist against right-of-center sources and greenlighting leftist coverage. Here’s one viciously anti-American, anti-Semitic source the so-called online encyclopedia’s editors greenlit, and won’t stop using.  Wikipedia editors greenlit the Qatari government-funded Al Jazeera, giving a pass to Hamas defenders on the same “reliable sources” list that MRC Free Speech America exposed earlier this year, which at the time effectively blacklisted every right-of-center source on the AllSides Media Bias Chart while approving the vast majority of radical leftist and elitist media sources. In fact, editors cited Al Jazeera 139,754 times across Wikipedia, including 48,229 citations for Al Jazeera’s English-language content.  [The story continues on MRCFreeSpeechAmerica.org]

Thursday’s Good Morning America illustrated its chronic and severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome as the ABC News program seemed skeptical of President Trump’s declarations of Nigerian Christians facing religious persecution and slaughter.  Yes, ABC sure came across as doubting Nigeria has a problem with religious tolerance....because Donald Trump argued the opposite. Oh, and regardless, ABC refused to mention who was slaughtering Christians. That would be the Islamist terror group, Boko Horam. “Now to the latest on President Trump threatening military action in Nigeria, claiming its government there is allowing Christians to be targeted by terrorists,” co-host Robin Roberts began. No big deal, just ABC's Robin Roberts and White House correspondent @MaryKBruce dismissing and scoffing on ‘Good Morning America’ at President Trump for pointing out the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, strongly implying Christians are not, in fact, facing persecution.… pic.twitter.com/ARHIHD51TS — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 6, 2025   Chief White House correspondent and Biden regime apple polisher Mary Bruce took it from there, sharing that Trump posted a new video on social media “issuing a fresh threat to Nigeria after accusing the government there of allowing the killing of Christians.” She then quoted from Trump’s remarks: “We’re going to do things to Nigeria that Nigeria not going to be happy about, and may very well go into that now disgraced country guns-a-blazing to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorists who are committing these horrible, horrible atrocities.” After adding he’s also directed the Pentagon to devise possible forms of action, Bruce pivoted to dismissing any of this was happening and only giving emphasis to Nigerian “officials” insisting the country’s problem with violence has been indiscriminate: The President says he’s also instructed the Defense Department to prepare for possible action, promising any attack would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.” Now, the Nigerian president doesn’t deny the horrific deadly violence in the country, but is refuting Trump’s claims, saying “the characterization of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality.” Officials say the terrorists are attacking Nigerians broadly, regardless of religion. The chyron as she spewed this nonsense? “Nigeria Denies President’s Claim of Persecution of Christians.” In Pew Research’s annual study of religious restrictions around the world, Nigeria had the second highest Social Hostilities Index (SHI) score in the entire world of 8.7 out of 10 and what they deemed a “high” Government Restrictions Index (GRI) score of 4.8 out of 10 (with high scores starting at 4.5). The State Department’s U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has similar concerns about Nigeria, writing this at the top of the country’s page: Religious freedom conditions in Nigeria are poor as the government tolerates or is slow to respond to attacks by nonstate actors who kill, kidnap or threaten Christians and Muslims in the northern and Middle Belt regions. State governments have sought to restrict public displays of indigenous religious practices and rituals. Twelve states and the federal government apply Shari'a punishments to all faiths. At least four Nigerians are imprisoned on blasphemy charges. And, in September, the U.S. Holocaust Museum’s Early Warning Project’s global risk assessment — which the Statement said “identifies the top countries where new intrastate mass killings” are taking — placed Nigeria in 11th place out of 28. But sure, Mary, go ahead and argue there’s nothing to see here. To see the relevant ABC transcript from November 6, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America November 6, 2025 7:10 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump Threatens Military Action in Nigeria] ROBIN ROBERTS: Now to the latest on President Trump threatening military action in Nigeria, claiming its government there is allowing Christians to be targeted by terrorists. Chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce is tracking this one for us. Good morning, Mary. MARY BRUCE: Good morning, Robin. Well, President Trump is now issuing a fresh threat to Nigeria after accusing the government there of allowing the killing of Christians. In a video posted on social media, the President says if the killings don’t stop, the U.S. will cut off all aid and is threatening possible military intervention, saying “we’re going to do things to Nigeria that Nigeria not going to be happy about, and may very well go into that now disgraced country guns-a-blazing to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorists who are committing these horrible, horrible atrocities.” The President says he’s also instructed the Defense Department to prepare for possible action, promising any attack would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.” Now, the Nigerian president doesn’t deny the horrific deadly violence in the country, but is refuting Trump’s claims, saying “the characterization of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality.” Officials say the terrorists are attacking Nigerians broadly, regardless of religion, Michael. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Nigeria Denies President’s Claim of Persecution of Christians] MICHAEL STRAHAN: Alright, thank you so much for that, Mary.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is working on identifying and tackling the root causes of America's obesity epidemic. In the meantime, the Trump administration wants to make sure that Americans have access to affordable diabetes and weight-loss drugs, specifically glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, better known as GLP-1 drugs.To this end and as part of his months-long campaign to bring most-favored-nation prescription drug pricing to Americans, President Donald Trump has struck a deal with pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Ozempic, to cut prices on their weight-loss drugs in exchange for Medicare coverage.A senior administration official indicated on Thursday that since Trump issued his most-favored-nation pricing executive order in May, GLP-1 drugs "have been top of mind" — not just because of the pharmaceuticals' apparent cardiometabolic benefits "but also because this is, again, an issue of fairness."RELATED: How MAHA can really save American lives IM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images Per the terms of Trump's deal with the two companies, "starting oral doses of GLP-1s will cost just $149 for everyone on Medicare, Medicaid, or Trump Rx," said an official. "That's roughly 1/9th of today's list price."For Medicare, the manufacturers have reportedly agreed to reduce prices on GLP-1 drugs that are currently used for diabetes and other covered conditions to $245 per month across all other doses, added the official.Savings generated by these price reductions will apparently be used to provide new coverage for GLP-1 drugs to patients struggling with obesity who face high metabolic or cardiovascular risk at the same monthly cost of $245.As of 2020, over 100 million American adults were obese, and more than 22 million adults suffered from severe obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.While the adult obesity rate reportedly declined from 39.9% in 2022 to 37% this year — representing roughly 7.6 million fewer obese adults — Gallup recently indicated that diagnoses of diabetes have reached an all-time high of 13.8%.Amid the glut of diabetes cases, there has been a significant increase in the number of U.S. adults who report taking GLP-1 drugs — from 5.8% in February 2024 to 12.4% in the latest quarter of 2025. The three-year decline in obesity among most age groups appears to correspond with the embrace of the weight-loss drugs.When asked roughly how many patients on Medicare and Medicaid would be impacted by these changes, another administration official noted that in Medicare, around 10% of the population will be eligible for the standard access. While the drugs are approved for a much broader population, access has been constrained for "patients that will benefit clinically from it."There will reportedly be three tiers of patients in Medicare who will have access to these drugs for the purposes of addressing obesity and driving "cardiometabolic improvement": those with a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m² suffering from pre-diabetes or established cardiovascular disease; patients with a BMI greater than 30 who have uncontrolled hypertension, kidney disease, and/or heart failure; and individuals with a BMI exceeding 35.'We do not believe that GLP-1s or drugs alone are somehow some silver bullet.'"This is about making America healthy again," said the second official. "This is about preventing strokes, this is about preventing heart attacks, and this is about preventing end-stage renal disease."The officials acknowledged, however, that cheaper drugs do not amount to a long-term solution to the problem of obesity."Make no mistake: We're in a war against obesity. We do not believe that GLP-1s or drugs alone are somehow some silver bullet to make the ... country healthy again," said one official. "They are an important jump-start."In exchange for their cooperation, the pharma giants are gaining additional access to beneficiaries who wouldn't otherwise be covered by Medicare for obesity indications, certainty from the Trump administration on its approach to drug pricing moving forward, and a commitment to invest in American manufacturing.One Trump administration official told reporters that this initiative is expected to ultimately be cost neutral, stating, "This is really a win-win on all sides — for taxpayers, for Medicare beneficiaries, as well as for the companies."Last month, Trump announced an agreement with AstraZeneca that would guarantee every state Medicaid program across the country most-favored-nation drug prices on the pharma giant's products. The previous month, he announced a similar deal with Pfizer."In case after case, our citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill, from the same factory, effectively subsidizing socialism [abroad] with skyrocketing prices at home," Trump said in a statement. "So we would spend tremendous amounts of money in order to provide inexpensive drugs to another country. And when I say the price is different, you can see some examples where the price is beyond anything — four times, five times different."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!