Ron's Parting Gift to Nikki May Be a Poison Pill

Distrust in science has become an ever-growing theme across the globe‚ not least in the US where the public perception of some scientific topics – notably COVID-19 and climate change – has become dominated by partisanship‚ politicization‚ and conspiracy theories. According to a new study‚ support for former President Donald Trump is a major variable that can predict whether a person will reject the scientific consensus on these subjects.In other words‚ buying into populist Conservative ideology and “Trumpism” increases the chances of a person not believing the accepted science of COVID-19 and climate change.These two subjects were the most outstanding sticking points‚ but Trumpism was also associated with people believing in a whole load of wildly anti-scientific ideas‚ albeit to a less significant extent. “Trump approval correlates with other conspiracy or science-rejecting views. Trumpists indicate higher agreement not only with flat Earth and Moon landing conspiracies‚ but also that vaccinations implant tracking microchips‚ and COVID-19 dangers have been exaggerated by scientists‚” the study reads. “At the same time‚ they express lower agreement with scientific conclusions that the Earth is billions of years old‚ humans evolved from earlier forms of life‚ human activities are changing the climate‚ or vaccines are mostly beneficial‚” it adds.Some other interesting insights from the new study include:Women are more likely than men to reject COVID-19 vaccines‚ but climate change denial was equally common among both men and women.Science rejection is less common among people with higher levels of education.Vaccine rejection is more common in low-income households‚ although income has no impact on climate-change views.The probability of climate change denial increases with age‚ while the probability of vaccine rejection decreases as people get older.Around 10 percent of the total people surveyed thought the Earth is flat‚ while a further 9 percent were unsure whether the Earth is flat. The new study was carried out by Professor Lawrence Hamilton‚ a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire‚ whose work uses statistical analysis to understand public perceptions of the environment‚ energy sources‚ and climate change. To reach these findings‚ he analyzed data from an online survey called POLES 2021‚ answered by 1‚134 US adults in the summer and early fall of 2021. The survey contains a variety of questions that asked about the respondents’ sociopolitical identity and background‚ as well as their views on things like the world’s climate and COVID-19. The study notes that conservative political identity has long been associated with lower concern about environmental problems and traditionally rejects strong state interventions‚ such as lockdowns‚ vaccine mandates‚ etc. However‚ these themes have become supercharged over the past decade through populist politics‚ which has exploited a growing distrust of “the establishment” (whatever one perceives that to be).“In the case of climate change and COVID‚ preexisting biases against scientists were reinforced by messaging from economic and political elites serving interests such as fossil fuel use or Trump’s re-election‚” the study adds. The study did not offer any ideas on how to regain the public’s trust in science‚ nor how this anti-science trend might develop in the years ahead. Trump was voted out of the White House in 2020‚ but he remains a dominant force in US politics and his 2024 presidential campaign is gaining substantial traction. Whatever the future may hold‚ it seems like the rise of anti-science is far from over. “Although Trump’s personal future is uncertain‚ his deep effects on US society are unlikely to go away soon; under some scenarios they could intensify. Even if support for Trump himself narrows‚ for example‚ elements of conspiracism and science rejection might become more pronounced among his core believers‚ or attach to new grievances and leaders‚” the study concludes.The new study is published in the journal PLOS One.

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain‚” wrote Ben Franklin in a letter to his pal Jean-Baptiste Le Roy in 1789‚ “except death and taxes.” This tells us two things: firstly‚ that Franklin knew a quotable turn of phrase when he saw one‚ and secondly‚ that he lived before the invention of the BMI.In the last 50 years‚ the body mass index (BMI) has gone from a relatively obscure demographic tool to an ever-present gauge of personal worth. BMI over a certain number? Say goodbye to that life-changing surgery – in fact‚ good luck getting treated equally in pretty much any medical setting. Prepare to be undervalued and underpaid at work – if you can even get hired in the first place – and if you’re still at school‚ expect to be graded more harshly and perceived by your teachers as “more burdensome” than your thinner peers. Frankly‚ it’s no wonder that a higher BMI correlates with lower self-esteem‚ higher rates of depression and anxiety‚ and a higher likelihood of facing abuse from family and romantic partners.And the real kicker in all of this? The BMI is bunk.The BMI was not meant for youWith the level of importance we tend to impart upon the metric‚ you might expect the BMI to be the result of years of research by health experts. It’s not. In fact‚ it was never meant to be used on individuals at all.“The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet‚” explained Stanford University mathematician and well-known science communicator Keith Devlin to NPR all the way back in 2009. “He was a mathematician‚ not a physician‚” Devlin pointed out. “He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words‚ it is a 200-year-old hack.”To a mathematician‚ or statistician‚ the metric kind of makes sense: over a large enough sample size‚ after all‚ the mean does indeed tend towards truth. But it was never intended to be a measure of health‚ or even of obesity – it was originally just an observation aimed at classifying some theoretical “average man”. And yes‚ it was almost entirely men that Quetelet based his figures on – specifically‚ European men‚ mostly from France and Scotland‚ and if you’re starting to see a problem here then whew boy‚ hold on to your hats‚ because we’re not done yet. The concept doesn’t just assume you’re a white guy born in 19th century Ghent; it also presupposes a mostly sedentary lifestyle‚ a working age and able body‚ an average income and education level – hell‚ even an average complexion (three guesses as to what that was).This is despite the fact that “our bodies‚ by nature‚ have some distinct characteristics driven by our gender‚ including that females generally have less muscle mass and more fat mass than males‚” pointed out Nick Fuller‚ Charles Perkins Centre Research Program Leader at the University of Sydney‚ in a 2022 article for The Conversation. “We also know muscle mass decreases and shifts around the body as we age.”Similarly‚ “research has also confirmed significant differences in body weight‚ composition and disease risk based on ethnicity‚” he continued. For example‚ “people of Asian ethnicity should have a lower BMI‚ and people of Polynesian ethnicity could be healthier at higher BMIs‚” he wrote.Even in more modern variations of the index‚ though‚ the base data has been overwhelmingly white and male. In other words: not only is the BMI a population measure rather than an individual one‚ but you’re probably not even a member of the population it’s measuring.The BMI does not measure healthSo how does a relatively obscure population-wide statistical data point become a ubiquitous proxy for individual health? Well‚ it becomes a little clearer when you learn the identities of two of the main supporters of the metric’s use in healthcare: insurance companies‚ and drug companies.“By 1867 the first American life insurance company created height and weight tables with the purpose of charging fat customers more‚” explained author and journalist Aubrey Gordon in a 2021 episode of the podcast Maintenance Phase. “The entire history of the thing is a dude who thought he was doing a population analysis and then a series of people who grabbed onto it largely for-profit motives – first insurance companies and then drug companies.”Working out a person’s BMI is cheap‚ and easy‚ and reduces a whole host of questions down to one relationship between two measurements – no wonder it took off. Looking at it from this perspective‚ its flaws as a health metric become even more glaringly obvious.For proof of that‚ look no further than your favorite sportspeople. “[The BMI] makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone‚ muscle and fat in the body‚” noted Devlin. “But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat‚ so a person with strong bones‚ good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI.”It’s why using the BMI alone will give you such unintuitive results as Tom Brady (BMI: 27.4; overweight‚ obese using pre-1998 definitions)‚ Jonah Lomu (BMI: 34.5 at his prime; obese)‚ or Shaquille O’Neal (BMI: a stonking 40.3 at his prime; severely obese) – or why Chris Hemsworth (BMI: 29.0) was playing a near-obese character in Thor: Love and Thunder even (perhaps especially) after the eponymous character’s buffing-up montage.“Because of how Quetelet came up with it‚ if a person is fat or obese‚ he or she will have a high BMI‚” Devlin explained. But "it doesn't work the other way round. A high BMI does not mean an individual is even overweight‚ let alone obese.”And it’s when the BMI is compared against other ways of measuring health that its weaknesses really show through. Take‚ for example‚ the 2016 study of more than 40‚000 Americans which concluded that “nearly half of overweight individuals‚ 29 percent of obese individuals and even 16 percent of obesity type 2/3 individuals were metabolically healthy” while “over 30 percent of normal weight individuals were cardiometabolically unhealthy.”Similarly‚ the index cannot account for body fat distribution – and that matters a lot more than you might think. “If you have fat stored around your stomach‚ your risk of chronic disease is much higher than people who have fat stored around their hips‚” explained Fuller‚ “because this is an indicator of how much visceral fat you have – the type of fat deep inside the belly that increases your risk of stroke‚ type 2 diabetes and heart disease.”“[The BMI] lacks accuracy and clarity and‚ in its current form‚ misses measuring the many important factors that influence your risk of disease‚” he wrote. “It should never be the only measurement you use.”The BMI is statistical nonsenseBut why‚ you might ask‚ is the BMI so useless? Well – why wouldn’t it be?The legitimacy of the BMI as a meaningful metric is on shaky ground from the get-go: after all‚ “there is no physiological reason to square a person's height‚” noted Devlin. That’s something Quetelet decided to do for more-or-less aesthetic reasons – he wanted the data collected to follow a Gaussian curve‚ and that was the ratio that provided one. (“If you can't fix the data‚ rig the formula!”‚ says Devlin.)And‚ having calculated your BMI‚ things get even more esoteric. According to the CDC‚ a BMI of 25 or above makes a person “overweight”; 30 or more and the classification is “obese”. But nobody really knows where those cut-offs come from: “these are arbitrary numbers‚” Katherine Flegal‚ a consulting professor in obesity epidemiology at Stanford University‚ told The Washington Post.As such‚ it’s pretty useless for measuring health – and‚ frankly‚ it’s weird that we still use it. “Imagine a sales rep comes to your clinic office to pitch a new gadget to gauge your patients' health‚” wrote S. Bryn Austin‚ a professor of social and behavioral sciences at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health‚ and Tracy K. Richmond‚ an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School‚ in a 2022 MedPageToday article on the BMI’s shortcomings as a diagnostic tool. “They tell you that it's not nearly as good as the measures you already have. It performs even worse with older people and athletes. It will drive large numbers of patients away‚ while it worsens symptoms in others. Then the sales rep adds sheepishly‚ at least it's cheap and easy to use‚” they suggest. “Would you buy it? Of course not‚ who in their right mind would?”The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions.  All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.  

Hang around any supermarket for long enough and you’re sure to be approached by a mature shopper with a request to pass them a top-shelf item. And while it may seem impossible to imagine our future selves experiencing similar grocery woes‚ the reality is that your spinal column can start shrinking from as early as your 30s‚ leaving you staring up helplessly at those high-stacked objects in your later years.The causes of this gradual demise are varied‚ with perhaps the most obvious being an increase in spinal curvature. Age-related slouching is known as kyphosis‚ and occurs as our muscle fibers dwindle over the years. As a result‚ the muscles surrounding the spine become weaker and we start to lose the battle against gravity‚ eventually becoming unable to stand up straight.Fortunately‚ however‚ kyphosis is not an inescapable destiny‚ and can be avoided by maintaining an active lifestyle and getting regular exercise. Ideally‚ this is something we should all be aiming at throughout our lives‚ and it’s much easier to avoid kyphosis by staying active as we age than to reverse it by taking up exercise once we’re elderly.And while slouching isn’t the same as shrinking‚ other age-related processes do cause us to literally become smaller. Among the most significant drivers of this shortening is a reduction in bone density‚ which is believed to be triggered by decreases in estrogen and testosterone as we get older.Vitamin D deficiencies and a decrease in renal calcium absorption in older age can exacerbate this process‚ sometimes leading to a bone disease known as osteoporosis. As the bones become weaker and more porous‚ the vertebrae that make up our spine can become crushed under our own weight‚ producing breaks that are known as compression fractures.Surprisingly‚ most compression fractures are pain-free‚ which is why we tend not to notice as our spines become increasingly compact over time. However‚ as these fractures accumulate and more of our vertebrae get squished‚ that top shelf may become more and more difficult to reach.This effect is often compounded by the degeneration of spinal disks‚ which sit between our vertebrae and act as shock absorbers. From our 30s onwards‚ these disks can start to dry out‚ becoming less and less firm as they lose water.With 23 disks in our spinal column‚ it only takes a few of these to decrease in height by a couple of millimeters before we start to notice ourselves shrinking. Unfortunately‚ stretching probably won’t make you any taller‚ although living a healthy lifestyle can prevent excessive shrinking. A diet rich in vitamin D and calcium‚ for instance‚ can help bones stay young and minimize the risk of compression fractures‚ while regular exercise also keeps bones strong and reduces the possibility of developing osteoporosis.The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current. 

Happy respiratory virus season kids! We’re now in the depths of winter‚ which has brought with it a triple threat of respiratory diseases – the so-called “tripledemic”. But what does that actually mean? And how concerned should we be? We’ve got you covered.What is the tripledemic?The term tripledemic refers to the combination of three respiratory viruses: COVID-19‚ influenza‚ and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Concerns were rife back in 2022‚ but seem to have sparked up again as the winter virus season rages.“People are using the word ‘tripledemic’ to refer to three prominent respiratory viruses that began their circulation‚ unseasonably‚ very early this year‚” Dr William Schaffner‚ medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases‚ told GlaxoSmithKline.“All of these… are active simultaneously‚ not to mention that there are other winter respiratory viruses that have not received quite as much publicity.”As the weather gets colder‚ and people are forced indoors in closer proximity to one another‚ virus transmission increases‚ Schaffner explained‚ adding that an uptick in traveling over the holidays can also help drive this.Should I be concerned?COVID-19‚ flu‚ and RSV all have relatively similar symptoms. They all affect the respiratory system‚ so coughing‚ sneezing‚ and a runny nose are hallmarks of each. While such symptoms tend to be mild for most people‚ for older adults‚ young infants‚ or people with a compromised immune system‚ they can present a greater risk.Unfortunately‚ it is possible to become infected by more than one virus at once – and while this can mean that symptoms are worse‚ they can also be the same‚ if not better‚ than when just one virus is present.“We’ve had patients come into our clinics testing positive for both COVID and flu‚” Dr Caroline Goldzweig‚ chief medical officer of the Cedars-Sinai Medical Network‚ told Cedars-Sinai blog earlier this month. “Having one doesn’t protect you from the other.”While Goldzweig reported a steady rise in respiratory viruses since November‚ more recent national estimates suggest that cases might have fallen off in recent weeks.Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)‚ “the amount of respiratory illness (fever plus cough or sore throat) causing people to seek healthcare is elevated across most areas of the country‚ though some decrease in activity is noted.” The week ending January 19‚ 25 jurisdictions experienced “high or very high” levels of patients seeking care for respiratory illness symptoms – down from 37 the previous week.Likewise‚ emergency department visits involving flu‚ COVID-19‚ and RSV are still elevated but seem to be decreasing. Meanwhile‚ COVID-19 and RSV test positivity has decreased‚ but influenza test positivity has remained stable.How do I protect myself?Fortunately‚ there are things you can do to protect yourself‚ and they’re no doubt things you’ve heard countless times before.First up: vaccines. The CDC recommends that everyone aged 5 years and older should get one dose of an updated COVID-19 vaccine to protect against serious illness.There are also seasonal flu vaccines‚ which the CDC recommends for everyone aged over 6 months old – especially those at higher risk of developing serious flu complications. RSV vaccination is recommended for infants or pregnant people‚ and may be available to those over 60 on the advice of a doctor.“Vaccines clearly assist in the prevention‚ particularly in the most serious aspects of both influenza and COVID-19‚” added Schaffner. “By getting vaccinated you help protect yourself and may also extend some of that protection to your family‚ your neighbors‚ and your communities.”Schaffner also advises hand-washing‚ staying home if you’re sick‚ wearing a mask‚ and social distancing.“If we do become ill‚ we can contact our healthcare provider‚ particularly if we’re in one of these high-risk groups. [But] if you have any kind of questions‚ always it’s recommended to speak to your healthcare provider. Have that conversation.”The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.

A new noninvasive brain stimulation technique that has the potential to help people living with memory loss due to Alzheimer’s disease has been developed by scientists from the UK Dementia Research Institute. We spoke to the first author of the new paper‚ Dr Ines Violante‚ Senior Lecturer in Psychological Neuroscience at the University of Surrey‚ to find out more about the study and what’s next for this research.The road from idea to laboratoryThe technique is called temporal interference (TI)‚ and it was first described by a team at Imperial College London led by Dr Nir Grossman. Back in 2017‚ they successfully tested it in mice‚ opening up the possibility of its use in humans. However‚ there’s a very long way between a proof-of-concept in an animal and trying the technique out on human volunteers.“There are a number of challenges‚” Dr Violante explained to IFLScience. “Let’s just start with the anatomy. If we think about the size of the brain – very different‚ right? The size of the brain in a mouse is like the tip of my finger and‚ well‚ in humans that’s not the case!”Not only are you dealing with two animals that have very different-looking brains‚ but the ethical and practical considerations around animal vs. human research are substantially different too. At the end of an experimental period‚ model animals may be sacrificed so that researchers can extract and examine brain tissues – clearly‚ this is not an option for human subjects. Safety concerns around human trials are also paramount‚ so they require careful planning.Fortunately‚ TI is not the only noninvasive brain stimulation method that’s been used in humans. We have many years’ worth of safety data about other methods‚ including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)‚ transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)‚ and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Some of these methods already have medical uses‚ and scientists have a good understanding of how humans react to them. Using this as a benchmark made designing a trial of TI in 20 healthy participants much easier.But even with all of this careful planning‚ nature could still throw a spanner in the works.“Unfortunately‚ we also had COVID in between [the mouse study and the human trial]‚” Dr Violante told IFLScience. “So we had to stop scanning for a year almost.”Eventually‚ the team was able to accomplish their experiments in all 20 volunteers. But what does a session of TI actually feel like‚ and what is it doing to the brain?How does it feel to have your brain stimulated?The aim of TI is to replicate the targeted brain stimulation that has‚ up to now‚ only been achieved through surgery. Deep brain stimulation (DBS)‚ where electrodes are implanted into the brain in specific areas‚ comes with some risks – but it does have important uses.In Parkinson’s disease‚ it’s the main surgical treatment offered when drugs no longer work to control the symptoms. The electrodes deliver high-frequency stimulation to regions in the brain that help control movement‚ powered by a battery-operated generator that’s usually inserted under the collarbone (a bit like a pacemaker).Although treatment for Parkinson’s may be its best-known application‚ DBS is also approved for use in obsessive-compulsive disorder‚ some forms of epilepsy‚ and other movement disorders. A recent study even suggested it could be transformative for people suffering the aftermath of a traumatic brain injury.But there’s no denying that brain surgery comes with significant risks to the patient.“Not everyone is a good candidate for DBS‚” Dr Violante told IFLScience. “Having brain surgery is not your first port-of-call […] and for many conditions we don’t yet have good targets for DBS.”By contrast‚ TI involves applying electrodes to the surface of the skull‚ in locations that can be carefully mapped and personalized to the individual. The subjects stay awake the whole time and can tell the researcher if something feels off or uncomfortable while the electrodes are delivering overlapping electrical fields over the target region."The idea is quite ingenious‚" Dr Violante said. "The idea is that you have at least two current sources [...] and there is a difference between [the] frequency of those two current sources [...] in the range of something that the brain is going to respond to.""Because we're using two current sources‚ they will meet at some point‚ [where] they generate an interference pattern." It's this overlapping of different frequencies that the research in animals demonstrated had the ability to influence neuronal activity deep within the brain.With other types of brain stimulation‚ such as tACS‚ it’s common for people to experience a tingling sensation‚ or some more unusual side-effects like the perception of flashing lights (called phosphenes) or a metallic taste in the mouth depending on the frequencies used. With TI‚ Dr Violante explained‚ most of the participants hardly felt a thing.“One advantage of the high frequencies that we’re using with TI is that actually‚ the perception of the stimulation only occurs for higher intensities. If you would compare tACS and TI directly at an intensity where you’re already feeling the pins and needles and tingling sensations you have with tACS‚ you don’t feel them with TI‚ and this is something that we also show in the paper.”The way that individuals experience brain stimulation differs enormously‚ but with TI the most common sensation was a slight pressure or heat. “We had one participant that reported it made them laugh!” Dr Violante recalled. An uncontrollable fit of the giggles certainly sounds preferable to complex brain surgery. But the million-dollar question is: does it work?Does it work‚ and where do we go from here?The recent study aimed to see whether TI had the potential to influence the hippocampus‚ the brain’s memory center‚ and the team first assessed this possibility using post-mortem brain tissues.Then they moved to the healthy volunteers‚ applying the TI stimulation while they were being asked to memorize pairs of faces and names. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was able to show that the stimulation was selectively targeting the hippocampal activity that was being ramped up as the subjects were performing the memory exercise.A later experiment involved a tougher memory test and longer stimulation sessions. Asking the participants to try to recall the names and faces they’d memorized 30 minutes later revealed that the stimulation led to improved memory accuracy – just as the team had hoped.The next step‚ led by Dr Grossman and the team from Imperial College‚ is a clinical trial in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Dr Violante explained to IFLScience that the aim is two-fold – clearly‚ the team needs to understand whether targeting the hippocampus in people who already have impaired memories is possible and beneficial‚ but they also need to learn more about who the treatment might work best for.There’s a lot more work to be done before we could see TI being offered as a treatment in the clinic. But these first steps have been promising‚ and come alongside a separate study from a team in Switzerland who also validated the use of TI to target the human striatum.The road from hypothesis to validated treatment may be long and winding‚ but it’s also peppered with lots of little wins.“You put everything together in the scanner and nothing explodes. You don’t break any equipment‚ it’s great. When you start seeing that you do have some changes in brain activity‚ that’s really great‚” Dr Violante told us. “And then when we see that we could indeed see changes in behavior by following this line from A to B to C‚ that was quite exciting.”The study is published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

Do video games make people more violent? It is a persistent belief among some people that they do‚ but the empirical evidence does not seem to support it. In fact‚ a new study has demonstrated that‚ contrary to making people more aggressive‚ playing violent video games can actually lower stress hormone levels in some players. It seems the relationship between video game content and player behavior is more complex than often assumed.The idea that video games make people more violent has been a contentious claim for many years. Within the public sphere‚ random acts of violence have sometimes been blamed on the perpetrator’s use of video games. In fact‚ in 2019‚ after a series of school shootings in the US‚ many commentators blamed video games for inspiring violence.Interestingly‚ previous research has shown that the video game explanation is often offered by people when the shooter is a white male‚ rather than Black. This seems to suggest a kind of cultural blind spot where racial minorities are more stereotypically associated with violence. But while the evidence continues to show that the relationship between video game content and violence is far more complicated‚ the whole “video games did it” argument continues to appear.This belief motivated researchers to take a closer look at the assumed association by examining the physiological and psychological effects of violent video games on players.“I am interested in this topic as I am a gamer myself. Since I was little‚ I was fascinated by video games and the virtual worlds. I played because it was fun‚ because I enjoyed the competition‚ to enjoy good stories‚ but also to relief some stress of my daily life‚” study author Gary L. Wagener‚ a doctoral researcher at the University of Luxembourg‚ told PsyPost.For Wagener‚ the inconsistencies between studies into video games and violence were a point of curiosity. Although there are some that have suggested a potential link between video games and heightened aggression‚ others have shown that this is not the case. But the media depictions of violent games do not reflect the complexity of this ongoing debate. As such‚ he decided to “investigate violent video game effects myself”.Wagener recruited 54 male participants through a mix of university mailing lists‚ social media‚ and advertisement posters. Each participant was randomly assigned to either play a violent or non-violent part of the video game "Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End". Each participant played their assigned passage for 25 minutes.Before and after the participants played the game‚ researchers measured their levels of cortisol (a stress hormone) and testosterone using saliva samples. Participants also completed questionnaires to measure their personality traits. These questionnaires assessed the “Dark Tetrad” or “triad” traits‚ which include levels of narcissism‚ psychopathy‚ sadism‚ and Machiavellianism.Finally‚ the participants took an Implicit Association Test to measure their aggressive tendencies. Contrary to what you might expect‚ the results found no significant changes to levels of testosterone in either group. Moreover‚ participants who played the violent part of the game actually had lower cortisol levels after it. This suggests that‚ rather than increasing stress‚ the violent content may have actually relaxed the players.In addition‚ the Implicit Association Test results showed no significant difference between the two groups of participants.“What was surprising for us in the end was that playing a violent video game had no effect on aggression whatsoever‚ even taking physiological effects and personality into account but it provided even beneficial physiological effects‚” Wagener added.“The average person should take away from this study that there is no clear picture that violent video games are harmful for players‚” Wagener explained. “They do not necessarily increase aggression in any way but can even have positive relaxing effects for players.”This finding is significant but the study still has its limitations. Firstly‚ the results cannot necessarily be generalized to other games. Wagener and colleagues are continuing to broaden the material they use to gain a greater understanding of these findings.Secondly‚ the study focuses solely on male participants. This was principally done to reduce variability and control factors linked to menstrual cycles and oral contraceptives‚ which could impact hormone levels. This then opens the prospect of studying the influence violent games may have on women.Future research will need to address these limitations. A larger pool of content and larger sample sizes using both male and female participants would add more detail to our understanding of this complex relationship between video games and violence.Wagener and colleagues are viewing this as the first step in ongoing research. Hopefully‚ we will be seeing a sequel to this work in the near future.The paper is published in Physiology &; Behavior.

The secret identity of a curious group of fossils has been revealed after palaeontologists sifted through almost 500 papers and got to watch a world-first microscope observation on YouTube. The fossils look a bit like a fingerprint that’s sloughed off‚ but they are‚ in fact‚ the encysted remains of a group of organisms that are neither plant nor animal.The fossils have been misidentified over the years due to strange lines or “ribs” that mark their surface‚ making them look a bit like a fingerprint. Unsure of what to do with them‚ scientists slapped on the label Pseudoschizaea‚ imagining they were some kind of shell‚ but new research has pointed to an alternative explanation. An international team realized they could be looking at euglenoids‚ a group of single-celled protists that are neither plant nor animal. Like plants‚ euglenoids photosynthesize‚ but like animals‚ they also eat. They’re thought to date back around a billion years to the start of the eukaryotic branch of the tree of life‚ but we haven’t found many of them in the fossil record.To test if they were onto something‚ the team sifted through hundreds of sources on animals resembling Pseudoschizaea‚ covering specimens that dated back almost 500‚000 years in the fossil record. The theory was that the fossils may be encysted euglenoids‚ which is a magic trick they use to survive harsh conditions by buckling down into a little ball. A skill that could explain why they’ve persisted for such a long time on Earth."Perhaps related to their capabilities to encyst‚ these organisms have endured and survived every major extinction on the planet‚" said Bas van de Schootbrugge‚ then at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main‚ in a statement. "Unlike the behemoths that were done in by volcanoes and asteroids‚ these tiny creatures have weathered it all."The only problem was that nobody to date had ever been able to observe a euglenoid encysting in a lab‚ but then along came microscopy enthusiast Fabian Weston from Sydney‚ Australia. His footage of water taken from a nearby pond in New South Wales posted to YouTube ended up capturing the moment the Euglena balled up and formed cysts with little lines similar to those seen in our mystery fossils.     “Unwittingly‚ Fabian provided a key piece of evidence‚” said Paul Strother from Boston College. “He is probably the only person on the planet to have witnessed Euglena encyst under a microscope.”The findings enabled the team to establish a timeline for euglenoids that goes back 400 million years‚ pieced together with the help of 200-million-year-old fossils and pond sediments from the Triassic-Jurassic boundary‚ as well as extant euglenoids living and encysting today. “This opens the door for recognizing even older examples‚ for example from Precambrian records that go back to the very root of the eukaryotic tree of life‚” concluded Strother. “Now that we know which organisms produced those cysts‚ we can also use them for paleo-environmental interpretations. Their abundance around two of the largest mass-extinction events of the past 600 million years is a tell-tale sign of some major upheavals on the continents related to increased precipitation under extreme greenhouse climate conditions.”The study is published in the journal Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology.

In an extraordinary display of interspecies interaction‚ a video from The Dodo captures the heartwarming tale of a coyote‚ named Carmine‚ who found an unusual way to interact with the world around him. Unlike most of his wild counterparts‚ Carmine was spotted playing with neighborhood dogs‚ a behavior that intrigued and concerned local residents. This... The post Friendly coyote melts hearts with his ‘sweet’ interaction with neighborhood dogs appeared first on Animal Channel.

The New York Times’ bumbling economics writer Paul Krugman continues to beclown himself the more he tries to defend the Bidenomics monstrosity. Krugman took to X (formerly Twitter) to once again downplay the inflation crisis brought on by President Joe Biden’s off-the-rails spending and stimulus policies that helped send price hikes into overdrive. His new excuse? Biden’s inflation battle is similar to President Ronald Reagan’s. “For people who say that Americans care about the level of prices‚ not the inflation rate‚ note that cumulative inflation under Biden so far is close to the number under Reagan. Which is why Reagan lost the 84 election in a landslide. Oh‚ wait.” No‚ you didn’t misread that. But as usual with Krugman’s takes‚ he left out crucial context that ended up obliterating his argument. Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Brian Riedl pointed out to Krugman that the “obvious difference [was] that Reagan inherited a 13.5% inflation rate‚ so voters gave him more slack to gradually bring it down to 3.2%.” Krugman didn’t bother mentioning that at all. “Biden inherited a 1.2% inflation rate and low inflation expectations‚ so the subsequent inflation spike to 8.0% was seen as his creation‚” Riedl continued. Effectively‚ Krugman just set himself up to take another massive “L” like the glutton for punishment that he is. The obvious difference is that Reagan inherited a 13.5% inflation rate‚ so voters gave him more slack to gradually bring it down to 3.2%. Biden inherited a 1.2% inflation rate and low inflation expectations‚ so the subsequent inflation spike to 8.0% was seen as his creation. https://t.co/GwwtIU7Rn8 — Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) January 21‚ 2024 Krugman’s ridiculous hot takes have certainly kicked into high gear lately.  During a recent interview‚ for example‚ Krugman had the nerve to characterize Americans’ panning Bidenomics despite all the media gaslighting as simple Biden hatred. “A lot of it is simply —a lot of people who say the economy is lousy —what they’re really saying is‚ ‘I hate the idea that a Democrat is president.’” So Americans shouldn’t be upset that they’re having to dish out an extra $11‚000 a year just to maintain a standard of living they had in January 2021?  Krugman even comically blamed “MAGA” for disgruntled Americans struggling with high prices brought on in large part by Biden’s inflation-stimulating policies in a Jan. 9 column. “The more I look into it‚ the more I’m convinced that much of what looks like poor public perception about the economy is actually just Republicans angry that Donald Trump isn’t still president‚” Krugman grumbled. It couldn’t possibly be that Americans are actually struggling to make ends meet in Biden’s economy‚ right Krugman? As X owner Elon Musk concluded in a recent post rebuking Krugman: "You give economics a bad name." No kidding. Krugman is displaying the symptoms of the now-common syndrome that gripped the left-wing punditry during Biden’s economy as the New York Post editorial board analyzed: “[E]litist ignorance.” In other words‚ if elitist hacks like Krugman had “been shopping to feed their families these last few years‚ they would have noticed the average grocery bill has shot up 25%‚” said the Post. Krugman is currently estimated to be worth $5 million. The newspaper concluded: “Bottom line: The pundit class’ confusion over Biden’s unpopularity is just one more proof of George Orwell’s maxim: ‘There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.’” Making a career out of peddling “absurd” ideas seems to have proven very lucrative for the delusional Krugman. Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 800-698-4637 and demand it distance itself from Krugman’s nonsensical Bidenomics propaganda.