A comprehensive new study conducted by the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention provides pivotal insights into the current state of political violence attitudes among U.S. adults. Despite widespread national polarization and a contentious election cycle between mid-2024 and mid-2025, findings reveal a striking stability in public endorsement of political violence, challenging fears of imminent widespread escalation. This survey, encompassing a nationally representative sample of over 8,000 adults, interrogated nuanced belief systems surrounding democracy, civil unrest, and the legitimacy of force in political contexts.

Importantly, while modest increases were observed in the fraction of respondents who deemed political violence justified under certain conditions, the data demonstrated no concomitant rise in personal willingness to engage in such acts. Particularly, there was no uptick in readiness to inflict physical harm or employ firearms in pursuit of political objectives. These revelations underscore a persistent societal equilibrium, even amid intense political tensions and rhetoric that at times border on incitement.

Dr. Garen Wintemute, the lead investigator and director of the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention, emphasized that political violence remains an exception rather than a norm. His extensive interdisciplinary research frames violence as not merely a security threat but a complex public health issue that demands empirical exploration. By deploying an annually repeated, nationally representative survey commencing in 2022, Wintemute and colleagues are able to track temporal dynamics in attitudes towards violence, providing valuable longitudinal context to current findings.

Key metrics within the study showed a slight increase in those believing violence is “usually or always” justified to achieve at least one political objective, rising from 32.3% to 35.6%. However, readiness to personally participate in violent acts—ranging from damaging property to committing homicide—remained stable or even declined slightly in some categories. This distinction highlights an important psychological phenomenon: abstract conceptual support for political violence does not necessarily translate into personal behavioral intent.

Exploration of firearm-related dispositions revealed no significant change in the proportion of survey participants anticipating being armed in hypothetically justified violent scenarios. Similarly, willingness to threaten or shoot individuals under such conditions remained consistently low. These findings contribute empirical weight to ongoing debates regarding the relationship between political beliefs and firearms possession or use, challenging simplistic narratives that conflate ideological conviction with propensity for violent militancy.

The study also examined perceptions relating to civil war, a perennial concern in political discourse. While a small uptick occurred in the number of respondents anticipating a potential civil war in forthcoming years, the proportion endorsing civil war as a necessary corrective mechanism remained unchanged. This suggests a heightened awareness or fear without a corresponding escalation in advocacy for violent revolution, reflecting a nuanced public calculus rather than wholesale acceptance of conflict as inevitable.

Crucially, the researchers segmented responses by political affiliation, particularly contrasting strong Democrats with supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. Striking disparities emerged in beliefs about the justification for political violence; over half of MAGA Republicans viewed such violence as justified under at least some conditions, compared to roughly one-third of strong Democrats. However, willingness to personally engage in injuring or killing remained infrequent and did not differ significantly between these groups, indicating a broad societal moderation with respect to direct violent action.

Temporal trends within these political cohorts revealed countervailing movements: strong Democrats exhibited modest increases in perceived justification for violence, whereas MAGA Republicans displayed slight decreases on similar measures. This bidirectional flux complicates narratives of unilateral radicalization and suggests a complex interplay of factors driving attitude shifts. It also casts doubt on determinist models predicting a linear path toward escalated political violence.

One notable finding was that a small minority in all political groups expressed personal willingness to engage in political violence as lone actors, with MAGA Republicans indicating a higher propensity (6.3%) relative to strong Democrats (2.8%). Similarly, the likelihood of being armed in violent confrontations was markedly higher among MAGA supporters. These insights align with prior research linking ideological extremism and individual predisposition to risk-taking behaviors, underscoring the salience of targeted prevention and intervention.

Despite ongoing concerns about political unrest, election-related violence, and threats targeting public officials, the study authors caution against alarmism. Public opinion data do not currently indicate an inexorable slide toward widespread political violence. Rather, the persistence of majority rejection of violent methods across the political spectrum highlights resilience factors that could be leveraged in violence prevention strategies.

Veronica Pear, senior author and epidemiologist at UC Davis, articulated that these findings affirm the potential efficacy of prevention initiatives grounded in the recognition that support for violence remains the exception rather than the rule. The study advocates for nuanced approaches that balance vigilance toward emergent risks with reinforcement of democratic norms and nonviolent conflict resolution.

Methodologically, this rigorous survey utilized validated psychometric instruments to assess beliefs, intentions, and anticipated behaviors concerning political violence. Its representative sampling framework and longitudinal design enhance both generalizability and temporal sensitivity, rendering it a critical contribution to the field of violence epidemiology. The transparent disclosure of funding sources and absence of competing interests further solidify the study’s credibility.

As political tensions and societal fractures persist in the United States, this evidence-based articulation of public attitudes provides an essential counterbalance to sensationalized narratives. Understanding the complex mosaic of support, rejection, fear, and intent regarding political violence informs policymakers, public health professionals, and the broader community in efforts to maintain democratic stability and prevent escalation.

The linkage of political violence to public health underscores the imperative for interdisciplinary collaboration, integrating epidemiological methods with political science, psychology, and law enforcement frameworks. Preventative measures must not only address individual risk factors but also confront structural conditions and discursive environments shaping political attitudes.

In conclusion, the resilient majority stance against political violence, amid sustained societal strain, offers a cautiously optimistic outlook. This stability amidst volatility suggests that despite heightened political polarization, the United States has not descended into a spiral of normalized violent conflict. It affirms the critical role of evidence-driven public health approaches and political engagement in safeguarding democratic processes and social cohesion.

---

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: Views on democracy and political violence in the United States in 2025: findings from a nationally representative survey

News Publication Date: 27-May-2026

Web References:

• Read the study
• UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention
• Support for authoritarianism and use of force by and against the federal government in the United States in mid-2025
• Military Service and Support for Political Violence and Right-Wing Extremism
• Approval of the National Rifle Association and political violence

References: 10.1186/s40621-026-00684-3

Keywords: Human health, Behavioral psychology, Human social behavior, Human aggression, Group behavior, Violence

In a groundbreaking advancement in metabolic medicine, researchers at the Medical University of Vienna have utilized an innovative whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging framework to reveal the extensive metabolic transformation triggered by bariatric surgery. This state-of-the-art imaging technique, employing radiolabeled glucose analog [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG), has illuminated the profound metabolic remodeling across numerous organs, offering unparalleled insights into how bariatric surgery reshapes the body’s internal metabolic landscape beyond mere weight loss.

For decades, bariatric surgery has served as a cornerstone treatment for obesity, delivering sustained weight reduction and mitigating related comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. However, until now, the precise systemic metabolic changes induced by these surgical interventions remained largely elusive. The advent of this novel PET/CT-based investigative approach addresses this gap by simultaneously quantifying metabolic activity across a broad spectrum of tissues, highlighting coordinated organ responses that contribute to metabolic recovery.

The study retrospectively analyzed 32 individuals diagnosed with obesity, who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or one-anastomosis gastric bypass—a pair of commonly employed bariatric procedures. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were performed preoperatively and again at a 12-month postoperative interval. This design allowed for a comprehensive comparison of metabolic alterations in diverse tissues including subcutaneous and visceral adipose depots, liver, pancreas, spleen, adrenal glands, and skeletal muscle.

Quantitative analysis of 18F-FDG uptake demonstrated a significant decline in glucose metabolism within adipose tissue compartments—both subcutaneous and visceral—as well as in the liver, pancreas, and spleen. These reductions reflect diminishing metabolic stress and inflammatory activity, consistent with clinical improvements reported in patients’ glycemic control and lipid profiles. Intriguingly, skeletal muscle metabolism exhibited complex remodeling, potentially indicating enhanced insulin sensitivity and muscle functionality after weight loss surgery.

Perhaps most striking was the observation of an apparent increase in colonic volume at the 12-month mark, pointing to a potential compensatory adaptation in gastrointestinal anatomy and function. This expansion may influence nutrient absorption dynamics and warrants further investigation. Moreover, the network analysis of PET data revealed increased metabolic connectivity between different organs post-surgery, signifying a more synchronized, systemic metabolic state rather than isolated organ changes.

These multidimensional metabolic insights provide compelling evidence that bariatric surgery unleashes a holistic metabolic recalibration, underscoring the notion that organ systems adapt in concert to restore metabolic homeostasis. This data challenges the traditional focus on singular biomarkers and weight parameters by emphasizing integrative organ-level metrics that better capture the complexity of obesity treatment outcomes.

Clinicians stand to benefit immensely from these findings, as whole-body molecular imaging could serve as a vital tool for tailoring postoperative care. By visualizing metabolic recovery across multiple tissues, healthcare providers can optimize monitoring strategies, anticipate complications, and customize therapeutic interventions—transitioning from a one-size-fits-all paradigm toward truly personalized metabolic medicine.

While pharmacological advances, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, have recently gained prominence in managing obesity, many patients continue to elect bariatric surgery for its durable benefits and reduced reliance on chronic medication. The novel imaging approach described herein holds promise for enhancing the safety and efficacy of these surgical treatments by illuminating the intricate biological shifts occurring during the critical healing and adaptation periods.

From a technological perspective, relying on 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging leverages the high sensitivity of positron emission tomography combined with anatomical precision from computed tomography, enabling precise spatial localization and quantification of metabolic signals. This synergistic imaging modality opens pathways for broader applications beyond obesity, including the study of metabolic diseases, cancer metabolism, and aging.

The researchers emphasize that interpreting postoperative metabolic changes necessitates multifactorial analysis, integrating PET imaging results with comprehensive laboratory assessments of glycemic indices, lipid panels, endocrine markers, and inflammatory parameters. Such a multidisciplinary approach is essential to unravel the complex biochemical networks underpinning the observed structural and functional organ modifications.

Critically, this study’s longitudinal design allowed for the assessment of sustained metabolic impact one year following surgery, providing more reliable data on long-term physiological adaptation rather than transient postoperative fluctuations. The findings underscore the dynamic but persistent nature of the metabolic recalibration prompted by weight loss interventions.

This landmark research was detailed in Abstract 261206, titled “Evaluation of organic metabolic profiling alternation assessed by [18F]FDG PET/CT in obese patients before and after bariatric surgery,” and presented at the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging’s 2026 Annual Meeting. The collaborative effort included experts in nuclear medicine, endocrinology, surgery, and biomedical imaging, reflecting the multidisciplinary challenges inherent in obesity treatment research.

In conclusion, this pioneering work spotlights the immense potential of whole-body PET/CT imaging as a transformative modality for understanding and optimizing metabolic health post-bariatric surgery. By mapping the metabolic trajectory across organ systems, clinicians and researchers gain a powerful vantage point to decipher obesity’s complex biology and tailor interventions for maximal therapeutic benefit. This integrated imaging strategy heralds a new era in metabolic medicine, one where precision and personalization drive superior patient outcomes across diverse obesity phenotypes.

Subject of Research: Metabolic changes and organ-level remodeling after bariatric surgery assessed by whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging.

Article Title: Evaluation of organic metabolic profiling alternation assessed by [18F]FDG PET/CT in obese patients before and after bariatric surgery.

News Publication Date: Not explicitly provided; related to Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2026 Annual Meeting.

Web References:

• Link to Abstract
• SNMMI Website

Image Credits: Courtesy of Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI).

Keywords: bariatric surgery, 18F-FDG PET/CT, metabolic imaging, obesity, organ metabolism, molecular imaging, personalized medicine, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, one-anastomosis gastric bypass, metabolic remodeling, glucose metabolism, multimodal imaging.

In recent years, the medical community has begun to critically reassess the longstanding reliance on Body Mass Index (BMI) as the primary tool for evaluating obesity and its associated health risks. Despite its widespread use as a simple and accessible measure, BMI fails to distinguish between muscle mass, bone density, and actual body fat. This inability to account for fat distribution and composition means that a substantial portion of individuals with potentially serious obesity-related complications may slip through the conventional screening process undetected. Now, groundbreaking research from Keck Medicine of USC challenges the adequacy of BMI by introducing clinical obesity as a more precise and meaningful metric for identifying at-risk individuals.

Traditional calculations of BMI classify individuals based solely on the ratio of their weight to height, typically categorizing those with a BMI under 18.5 as underweight, between 18.5 and 25 as normal or healthy weight, between 25 and 29.9 as overweight, and 30 or above as obese. However, this methodology overlooks a crucial factor integral to metabolic health: the location and nature of adipose tissue. BMI’s inability to differentiate between lean muscle and fat means that muscular individuals might be labeled obese, whereas normal-weight individuals with excessive visceral fat remain unrecognized as having clinically significant obesity.

The concept of clinical obesity, developed in 2025 by the Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology Commission, directly addresses the shortcomings of BMI by focusing on visceral fat accumulation, particularly in the abdominal region. Unlike subcutaneous fat, which lies just beneath the skin, visceral adipose tissue infiltrates deep within the abdominal cavity, surrounding vital organs and releasing inflammatory mediators that contribute to metabolic dysfunction and chronic disease. This inflammation plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, and other obesity-related morbidities.

Measurement of clinical obesity involves three key anthropometric parameters: waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and waist-to-height ratio. These metrics provide a more nuanced assessment of fat distribution, enabling clinicians to detect dangerous levels of abdominal adiposity. If an individual exceeds established thresholds in at least two of these measurements and exhibits health impairments commonly linked to excess visceral fat—such as hypertension, diabetes, or joint pain—they are classified as clinically obese, regardless of their BMI category.

A new study led by hepatologist and liver transplant specialist Dr. Brian P. Lee, MD, MAS, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, systematically analyzed data from 5,600 adults aged approximately 49 years in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Their findings unequivocally highlight the limitations of BMI: an estimated 26% of individuals categorized as having a normal BMI by conventional standards are, in fact, clinically obese. Furthermore, half of those classified as overweight by BMI also meet criteria for clinical obesity, underscoring the vast underdiagnosis potential inherent in BMI screening.

This underrecognition poses serious implications for public health and clinical practice. Presently, many treatment protocols, including pharmacologic and surgical options for obesity, are contingent upon BMI thresholds, inadvertently excluding millions who suffer the metabolic consequences of fat deposition despite “normal” weight status. Dr. Lee emphasizes that this gap means patients with normal or slightly elevated BMI values may miss timely interventions that could prevent progression to severe disease states.

The distinguishing capacity of clinical obesity to identify high-risk phenotypes that BMI overlooks is particularly vital given the wide spectrum of obesity-related diseases. Excess visceral fat is implicated in the etiology of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and certain malignancies. Moreover, chronic inflammation fueled by adipose tissue contributes to early vascular aging and organ dysfunction, making early detection a cornerstone for effective disease management.

Importantly, clinical obesity is not an inescapable destiny; it is a modifiable condition. Evidence-based interventions spanning lifestyle modifications, tailored pharmacotherapy, and in selected cases, bariatric surgery, have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing visceral fat and improving metabolic outcomes. However, success hinges on accurate diagnosis and stratification, areas where clinical obesity proves superior to BMI.

The compelling research results advocate for a paradigm shift in obesity screening and diagnosis. Dr. Lee envisions the integration of clinical obesity metrics into routine medical practice, augmenting current approaches. Doing so would refine risk assessments, enable personalized treatment pathways, and potentially reduce the incidence of obesity-related complications that represent a substantial burden on healthcare systems worldwide.

Furthermore, these insights challenge public perceptions of obesity, moving beyond the simplistic reliance on weight charts toward a more sophisticated understanding of metabolic health. The emphasis on adiposity rather than body weight alone could decrease stigma by reframing obesity as a complex biological condition rather than merely a cosmetic issue.

This evolving understanding also holds promise for advancing research into obesity pathophysiology. By employing clinical obesity criteria, studies can more accurately stratify participants, enhancing the validity of findings regarding interventions and outcomes. Such precision could drive innovation in therapeutics targeting visceral fat reduction and inflammation modulation.

In summary, the transition from BMI to clinical obesity assessment marks a critical evolution in the medical evaluation of obesity. The nuanced approach recognizes the heterogeneous nature of obesity and its metabolic consequences, advocating for improved diagnostic accuracy to ultimately enhance patient care and public health outcomes. Widespread adoption of this approach could redefine how clinicians worldwide identify and manage obesity, offering new hope for millions at risk of preventable disease.

---

Subject of Research: Evaluation of obesity measurement methods comparing Body Mass Index (BMI) and clinical obesity criteria.

Article Title: Limitations of BMI in Obesity Diagnosis: Clinical Obesity as a Superior Metric for Identifying At-Risk Individuals

News Publication Date: 2024

Web References:

• Keck Medicine of USC Liver Health Center
• Study in Annals of Internal Medicine
• Clinical Obesity Measurement Guidelines

Image Credits: PHOTO COURTESY OF BRIAN P. LEE, MD, MAS

Keywords: Body Mass Index, Clinical Obesity, Visceral Fat, Adipose Tissue, Obesity-Related Health Risks, Metabolic Syndrome, Waist Circumference, Waist-to-Hip Ratio, Waist-to-Height Ratio, Inflammation, Hepatology, Obesity Diagnosis

New research is challenging the longstanding reliance on body mass index (BMI) as the primary measure to define obesity and its health risks in adults. Traditionally, BMI—calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters—has been used as a simple and cost-effective metric to diagnose obesity. However, recent findings suggest this method may significantly underestimate the true prevalence of health risks related to excess body fat. By incorporating a broader set of anthropometric measurements combined with markers of obesity-related organ and physical dysfunction, scientists are painting a more complex and accurate picture of obesity’s impact on health.

The concept of “clinical obesity,” introduced by the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission, aims to transcend the limitations of BMI alone by including assessments of body fat distribution and evidence of compromised organ or physical function. This approach attempts to address the disconnect between a normal or overweight BMI and the presence of metabolic and functional impairments caused by excess adiposity that BMI cannot detect. Anthropometric tools such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and waist-to-height ratio provide critical insight into central adiposity—the fat deposited around vital organs—that BMI fails to quantify effectively.

Researchers at the University of Southern California led an analysis utilizing data from the 2021–2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a comprehensive and representative survey of the U.S. population. They examined over five thousand adults, evaluating their BMI, various anthropometric measures, and physiological indicators suggestive of reduced organ or physical function. The study’s cross-sectional design enabled the researchers to estimate how clinical obesity prevalence differs when relying on multifaceted criteria rather than isolated BMI cutoffs.

Remarkably, the data revealed that approximately one-quarter of adults classified within the normal BMI range exhibit clinical obesity—a condition characterized by excess adiposity coupled with early signs of organ or physical dysfunction. Furthermore, more than half of those categorized as overweight based solely on BMI met the clinical obesity criteria. These findings imply that a substantial subset of individuals presumed to be at lower risk according to BMI might actually bear significant health vulnerabilities associated with excess fat accumulation and its metabolic consequences.

When the threshold for defining excess adiposity included multiple abnormal anthropometric indicators rather than BMI alone, the prevalence of fat-related health risks soared dramatically. Nearly 78% of participants showed signs of excess adiposity when considering two or three abnormal anthropometric measures. This contrasts starkly with the roughly 41% prevalence when relying on an abnormal BMI combined with one anthropometric abnormality. The discrepancy underscores the utility of multi-parameter assessments in uncovering hidden health detriments not detected by BMI-focused screening.

These insights have profound implications for clinical practice. Physicians and health systems traditionally depend on BMI as a quick screening tool due to its simplicity and ease of use, but this research suggests that relying on BMI alone may overlook many patients at risk for obesity-related diseases. Introducing comprehensive assessments, including waist circumference and other anthropometric evaluations, paired with functional and organ health indicators, may improve diagnostic accuracy, enabling earlier intervention and more personalized care strategies.

From a pathophysiological perspective, the accumulation of visceral fat—fat stored in the abdominal cavity—plays a central role in driving metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other complications frequently attributed to obesity. BMI lacks sensitivity to distinguish between subcutaneous fat, which lies beneath the skin, and the more dangerous visceral fat enveloping internal organs. This distinction is crucial, as excess visceral fat triggers inflammation, hormonal disruptions, and organ damage long before weight gain becomes apparent on conventional BMI scales.

Incorporating clinical obesity criteria can also better align treatment decisions with patients’ actual health status rather than simply their weight. It may steer healthcare providers towards recommending more intensive lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy, or monitoring in individuals who appear “normal weight” but harbor underlying fat-associated impairments. Conversely, it can prevent unnecessary alarm or overtreatment in those who have a high BMI by muscle mass or other benign factors, thus promoting more equitable and effective patient care.

The study’s findings support a growing consensus in the medical community that a paradigm shift is needed to improve obesity diagnosis and management. Public health initiatives and clinical guidelines must adapt to encompass multifactorial evaluations of adiposity and its systemic effects. Such evolution is vital not only to enhance patient outcomes but to curb the escalating economic and societal burdens imposed by obesity-related chronic diseases.

While BMI’s convenience and historical precedent have made it an entrenched tool in both research and clinical settings, this evidence calls for integrating additional anthropometric and functional parameters. The cost-effectiveness and feasibility of these measures in routine practice will need further evaluation but offer a promising avenue to identify hidden risk and tailor interventions more precisely.

This research thus adds a critical layer of understanding to the complex phenotype of obesity, highlighting how a seemingly normal weight individual might be clinically obese. Recognizing and validating clinical obesity as a diagnostic entity may revolutionize how medical professionals perceive, diagnose, and treat excess adiposity and its pervasive impact on human health.

As the obesity epidemic continues unabated worldwide, these findings emphasize the urgency of refining diagnostic tools beyond BMI. Embracing a more nuanced and comprehensive evaluation framework could empower clinicians to detect early declines in organ and physical function linked to excess fat, ultimately improving prevention strategies and reducing morbidity and mortality associated with obesity’s silent progression.

Together with the evolving insights into adiposity’s role in metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, adopting clinical obesity criteria marks a forward step in personalized medicine—one that respects the intricate interplay between body composition, function, and long-term health risks. Future research should expand upon these initial findings to develop standardized and accessible protocols that can be seamlessly integrated into diverse healthcare settings globally.

Subject of Research: People
Article Title: National Prevalence of Clinical Obesity by BMI Class: A National Cross-Sectional Study
News Publication Date: 2-Jun-2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-25-05287
Keywords: Obesity, Clinical medicine, Body mass index

In a small randomized trial in the United Kingdom, adults who added a serving of 100% fruit juice or a smoothie to a healthier diet reported lower depression scores after four weeks.

The post Daily Glass of Fruit Juice May Lift Your Mood: Study appeared first on Sci.News: Breaking Science News.

A new survey estimates 8 million young people use AI chatbots for help when stressed, angry or sad, an increase from 2024.

Magnetic field sensors are everywhere in modern life, even though most people never notice them. These tiny electronic components help detect movement, position, and distance, and are found in products ranging from smartphones and computer hard drives to car steering systems, security sensors, and smart packaging. Billions of magnetic sensors are manufactured every year. However, […]

The post This low-cost printed sensor could transform smart packaging and medical devices appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.

you care about tooth health, please read studies about an important causes of tooth decay and gum disease, and common tooth disease that may increase risks of dementia. For more health information, please see recent studies about mouthwash that may increase your tooth damage, and results showing this diet could help treat gum disease. Source: Rutgers School of Dental […]

The post Study Finds Big Cause of Tough Dental Implant Infections appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.

For many people living with rheumatoid arthritis, modern medicines have changed their lives. Treatments that target inflammation can reduce joint damage, ease pain, and help patients stay active for longer. Yet there remains a group of patients who continue to suffer from pain, tiredness, and poor quality of life even after receiving the best available […]

The post Why some arthritis patients still hurt even when treatment is working appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.

Depression is one of the most common mental health conditions in the world, affecting hundreds of millions of people. It can cause persistent sadness, loss of interest in daily activities, low energy, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, and feelings of hopelessness. While many people benefit from antidepressant medications and psychological therapies, a significant number continue to […]

The post Could an arthritis drug help people with severe depression? appeared first on Knowridge Science Report.

For a woman in her mid-40s to mid-50s, it arrives without warning. She wakes up, overheated, wondering why it’s so hot in the house—until she sees the thermostat is set for 70 degrees, same as always. Or, she’s midway through a work presentation when heat rises from her chest to her face, and she wonders if the flush on her cheeks is visible to everyone in the room. 

It’s a hot flash—a rite of passage for the majority of women in either perimenopause, the years leading up to menopause, or the years beyond it. Menopause itself is diagnosed after 12 consecutive months without a period, but the hot flashes don’t always get the memo.

Here’s everything doctors currently know about hot flashes.

What is a hot flash, and who gets them?

Hot flashes are a sudden heat flare up often paired with flushed skin and sweating. They don’t usually last long, between a minute and five minutes in duration.

Most women experience a hot flash about four and a half to five years after their last period, Dr. Monica Christmas, an OB/GYN at University of Chicago Medicine and director of its menopause program tells Popular Science. She also is the associate medical director of the nonprofit Menopause Society, which provides healthcare professionals with tools and resources to support women through the transition.

Women have grappled with hot flashes—whether simply annoying or genuinely debilitating—for centuries. In 1582, Dr. Jean Liebault of France was among the first to document the phenomenon. But while we know much more about hot flashes and night sweats than Liebault ever did, one question still stumps experts. 

“What we can’t answer is why doesn’t everybody get them,” Christmas says. “Because everybody doesn’t get them. I have patients that will say, ‘I don’t know,’ if I say, ‘Are you having any hot flashes or night sweats?’ And as soon as they say that, I’m like, ‘You’re not having them.’” 

What’s actually happening inside women’s bodies during a hot flash? 

During a hot flash, a woman might feel like she’s spiking a high fever, but physiologically, that’s not what is happening. As women approach menopause and the ovaries begin to make less estrogen, the brain’s internal thermostat—the hypothalamus—becomes hypersensitive to even small shifts in temperature, Christmas says.

The body “thinks” it’s overheating, even when the actual temperature hasn’t changed much. In response, our bodies try to cool us down. Blood vessels dilate, which is supposed to help dissipate some of that heat, but then that triggers a sweating reflex.

“Many people will say, ‘I feel this out of nowhere, this surge of warmth that typically is from the nipple line up,’” she says. “And then as soon as the heat came on, and I felt like I was internally heated up or on fire, I start to sweat.” 

Related 'Ask Us Anything' Stories

Can you overdose on cough drops? Short answer: Yes.

Why scars never disappear

Why do your joints hurt when it’s cold? We asked a doctor.

What’s a brain freeze and why do they happen?

Why do we even have baby teeth?

Why we have two nostrils instead of one big hole

How do women experience hot flashes differently? 

Exactly how an individual woman experiences hot flashes varies wildly. Some describe very mild symptoms. Others grapple with profuse sweating. Some experience only hot flashes during the day, while some have regular night sweats. About four in five women experience them at some point during the menopause transition, according to the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot of variability,” Christmas says. Common triggers include alcohol, caffeine, high-sugar and highly processed foods, along with stress.

Black women also are more likely to experience more severe and longer-lasting symptoms, sometimes up to 11 years, she says. And research also shows that women with more severe, longer-lasting hot flashes and night sweats appear to be at higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

That doesn’t mean treating hot flashes automatically lowers heart risk, Christmas says. But it does reinforce that these women deserve particularly careful attention to blood pressure, cholesterol, and lifestyle. “I want to make sure I’m doing everything possible to minimize that risk,” she says when she treats her patients. 

There’s more to hot flashes than hormonal changes

For decades, the entire process was blamed purely on estrogen loss, Christmas says. But that explanation left some unanswered questions. 

“That doesn’t explain why every menopausal woman doesn’t have night sweats,” she says. “And it also doesn’t quite explain why we can sometimes start to experience them during the perimenopause transition because during perimenopause, people still have some estrogen.” 

Newer research now is telling a more complex story. When the brain recognizes that a woman’s estrogen levels are low, nerve cells in the hypothalamus called KNDy neurons (pronounced “candy”) become overactive, releasing neurotransmitters, which are chemical signals the brain uses to send messages throughout the body. These neurotransmitters include kisspeptin, dynorphin, and neurokinin B. 

“It’s actually those neurotransmitters that seem to have more of an impact on our ability to regulate our internal temperature,” Christmas says. “They’re not hormones.” 

What to do if you get a hot flash

For women in the middle of their hot flash years—along with the 10 percent of menopausal women who continue to experience them—there are treatments. 

Estrogen-based hormone therapy can help, but not every woman, including those with a history of blood clots or breast cancer, can take hormone therapy. 

Fortunately, researchers’ new understanding about the role of KNDy neurons has allowed for new treatments that block the brain signals that trigger hot flashes in the first place. The FDA approved a new drug called Veozah (it’s chemical name is fezolinetant) in 2023. It targets the neurokinin 3 receptor, which plays a key role in regulating body temperature. 

Lynkuet, another drug (with the chemical name elinzanetant), came along in 2025. It blocks both the neurokinin 1 and neurokinin 3 receptors, interrupting the process that triggers hot flashes at two points instead of one. 

Other medications can also provide relief, though weren’t originally developed for hot flashes, Christmas says. Some SSRIs and SNRIs; gabapentin, a neurologic medication; and oxybutynin, used for overactive bladder, are all used off-label for hot flashes and night sweats. 

Cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnosis also have been shown to reduce hot flashes. “I’m menopausal, too, so I know if I’m under a lot of stress or in a stressful situation, I’m going to probably have more hot flashes than not,” Christmas says. 

“So there’s certainly something about being able to calm our central nervous system down that seems to have an impact, too.”

If you’re struggling with hot flashes, Christmas recommends seeing your healthcare provider for help. Treatments are available. What’s more, in some cases, hot flashes or night sweats could signal other issues, including thyroid disorders, cancer, and infections, among others. 

But bottom line, when it comes to hot flashes, you don’t have to sweat them out.

In Ask Us Anything, Popular Science answers your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the everyday things you’ve always wondered to the bizarre things you never thought to ask. Have something you’ve always wanted to know? Ask us.

The post What happens inside your body during a hot flash appeared first on Popular Science.

A biotech startup called Bexorg is doing something that sounds like it was ripped straight from the pages of a cyberpunk novel — or from the script of “RoboCop,” for that matter.

The company is extracting human brains just hours after their owners died and then hooking them up to specialized life support machines, Science reports. While the masses of pink mush no longer host electrical activity, most of their key functions remain intact, allowing scientists to test experimental drugs, such as potential treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, like never before.

You’d hope that the disembodied cerebrums are most assuredly dead. But according to the reporting, an extracted brain hooked up to one of Bexorg’s proprietary life support machines, BrainEX, “hovers between life and death.” There’s no spark of consciousness, and yet the brains are kept running on an artificial lung, kidney oxygenate, blood, and other fluids.

Perhaps you can put this ambiguity down to the startup being deliberately enigmatic to provoke attention. Or maybe it’s a reflection of how the distinction between life and death is uncomfortably blurry.

But you can put those doubts out of your very-much embodied mind, assures Brendan Parent, one of Bexorg’s six ethicists. The extracted brains are almost devoid of the coordinated neural firing necessary for minimal consciousness, he told Science. To prevent the eerie implausibility that some the brains produce electrical activity, the brains are also dosed with anesthetic propofol. Of course, that such a measure has to be taken in the first place may actually be less assuring and more unsettling.

Ethics aside — not a statement that should be made lightly — the scientific possibilities that these extracted brains afford may well hold promise. Bexorg CEO Zvonimir Vrselja said that the brains come with decades of environmental exposures, histories of drug treatments, and other factors that make them a more realistic testing medium for drugs. “You get cells that have been there for 60 to 80 years,” Vrselja told Science.

Bruna Bellaver, who studies neurodegeneration at the University of Pittsburgh, was also effusive. 

“It’s a huge step up from mouse models,” she told Science.

Bexorg is the same startup that demonstrated, over six years ago, that it could keep decapitated pig brains alive for 36 hours using a prototype of its BrainEX machine.

Today, its human brains aren’t kept running in perpetuity. After 24 hours, they’re sliced into hundreds of pieces so they can be analyzed by scientists. The company plans to use a robotic arm to slice up to 1,600 brains per year.

Though Bexorg hasn’t itself published any papers on its work with human brains, other companies have already been eagerly experimenting with them. The pharmaceutical firm Biohaven has used 130 of its brains to test drugs, according to Science, including a potential treatment for Parkinson’s disease, and plans to launch a clinical trial for another drug using data it gathered from those experiments.

More on neuroscience: Scientists Say Test Subjects Were Able to Quit Smoking After They Blasted Their Brains With a Huge Magnet

The post Startup Testing Drugs on Freshly Extracted Human Brains That Are Kept On Life Support appeared first on Futurism.

Therapy is predicated on trust. You can’t be honest and vulnerable, and share how you’re really feeling, if you don’t believe in the embodied-concerned-frown sitting in the armchair across from you.

So you can understand why one woman, 31-year-old Molly Quinn, was taken aback when her trusted therapist suddenly whipped out an AI model to start recording their private conversations, NPR reports. 

“She wasn’t taking notes like she usually did,” Quinn recalled realizing halfway through one session. “The iPad was just propped up.”

Where were her words being processed and stored? Will they one day become training data? It’s not something you have to ask yourself when your therapist jots stuff down on a clipboard. But those questions were now racing through Quinn’s head, leaving her uneasy.

“The more I thought about it, the more I just started getting more and more sick to my stomach,” she told NPR. “This person who I’m supposed to be able to trust with some very private and very intense emotions had just completely disregarded something I said I was not comfortable with. I felt completely violated.”

Though her therapist offered to stop using the AI tool, Quinn cut her off and found another one.

“The trust was gone,” she told NPR.

Like doctors, therapists across the country are adopting AI tools for notetaking and generating transcripts. AI companies offering these services frame it as a way of cutting down on the drudgery of paperwork and other administrative tasks, freeing up more time to focus on patients — a permutation of a common AI industry refrain: let us do the tedious stuff for you. 

The reliability of AI tools remains fairly dodgy, though, and even setting aside questions of hallucinations creeping into clinical notes — which is something we’re already seeing happen — it’s not clear whether patients are even comfortable with the tech yet. In a YouGov survey cited by NPR, only 11 percent of Americans said they would be open to using AI in mental health care. An even slimmer eight percent said they would trust AI being used this way, while 40 percent said they don’t trust the technology at all.

“Even the presence of AI changes the therapeutic experience,” Marisa Cohen, a couples and sex therapist in New York, told NPR. “Clients know or feel like something else is listening to them. That awareness can subtly alter their disclosure.”

“When you introduce something that’s being stored electronically, it raises additional questions about trust and safety,” Cohen added. “It’s essentially a third party.”

Tal Salman, the CEO a popular AI scribe tool for therapists called Berries, insists that conversation recordings are deleted immediately and that transcripts are stored on HIPAA compliant servers in the US. Even if this is true, if AI companies’ tools are to ever have a place in private mental health settings, they need the trust of patients — and that’s something the AI industry clearly hasn’t earned yet. Quinn fears that AI-recorded conversations could one day be exposed by hackers.

“We’re going to see breaches,” she told NPR. “Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week. But in a few years? I think we’re going to see them. And I don’t want my therapy session to be part of that.”

More on AI: The Pope Just Low Key Declared Holy War on Artificial Intelligence

The post Woman Alarmed When Her Trusted Therapist Starts Recording Her With AI appeared first on Futurism.

Dust storms are becoming increasingly common sights throughout much of the US, fueled by hot and arid conditions brought about by global warming. While there are the ever-present dusters in states like Arizona, those living in regions like the Midwest and Pacific Northwest are now learning what it means to be swallowed by these great walls of sand and dirt.

These dust storms are dangerous enough on their own, leading to spikes in emergency room visits and disrupting agricultural economies. But according to writing climate scientist Bill McGuire in the BBC‘s Science Focus, dust storms are now becoming vectors for massive clouds of fungal spores, an event he calls “fungal storms.”

Far-out as that may sound, McGuire writes that fungus and bacteria traveling along with dust particles has been strongly correlated with outbreaks of bacterial meningitis across the Sahel region of Africa. In the continental US, they’re becoming increasingly tied to outbreaks of Valley Fever, a lung infection caused by the spores from the fungus Coccidioides.

One 2017 research paper published in Geophysical Research Letters noted that incidents of Valley Fever ballooned by over 800 percent from 2000 to 2011. In two geographical areas with high concentrations of the infection, dust storms where “found to better correlated with the disease than any other known controlling factor.”

Though some have argued the term “fungal storm” is more media hyperbole than a well-defined scientific phenomenon, further research has noted “abundant evidence” pointing to dust storms as a vector for pathogens like Valley Fever.

Whatever you call it, it’s clear the dangers of dust storms are growing right before our eyes.

As secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization Celeste Saulo told McGuire, “sand and dust storms do not just mean dirty windows and hazy skies. They harm the health and quality of life of millions of people and cost many millions of dollars through disruption to air and ground transport, on agriculture and on solar energy production.”

More on climate change: The Upcoming El Niño Is About to Unleash Devastation, Experts Warn

The post Apocalyptic “Fungal Storms” Are Now Surging Across the US appeared first on Futurism.

Parents say their kids are going ballistic when they take their iPads away from them, leaving them unsure of what normal behavior might be — and whether there’s something sinister going on with their child’s connection to the devices.

Rachel, a mother of two, tried limiting her son Jonah’s screen time by warning him that he had put down his iPad to leave for a birthday party at 11 AM. Despite the repeated warnings the day before and several reminders before the hour mark, when it came time to leave, Jonah had a meltdown.

“He just left his body,” the mother told The Cut of her son, who hurled the electronics and started screaming: “You said I had until 11! It’s not 11 yet! You’re always doing this!”

Jonah followed her around the house, distraught, until finally collapsing on the kitchen floor and refusing to move.

“I remember standing there thinking, I don’t know this person,” she recalled. “I genuinely did not recognize him.”

Thirty minutes later, he tied his shoes, got in the car, and acted like nothing had happened.

“That’s the part that really messes with you,” Rachel says. “How fast they come back.”

Think that’s bad? Hear what Nora had told The Cut about her 13-year-old son when she asked to check his phone settings: he accused Nora of ruining his life, before dropping a grenade in conversation.

“You make me want to kill myself,” he lashed out.

And while getting dinner last month at an Italian restaurant, Rachel told the outlet that she allowed her daughter Maya to watch YouTube Kids on the phone. When it was time too leave, she took the phone back. Maya went rigid, screamed, and hid under the table.

What’s going on here? Are these the kind of extreme tantrums that kids are prone to throw no matter the toy they’re being deprived of? Is everyone a bad parent, or at least not handling this the right way? Or are apps and the devices they run on uniquely addictive, somehow impacting a child’s development in novel and frightening ways?

The research into this area is still emerging, as are the generation of children raised on YouTube Shorts, Roblox, and other mobile games. That’s to say that we’re still a long way from grasping the long-term cognitive effects of being a so-called “iPad kid.” And the latest Silicon Valley horror, AI chatbots, are an even bigger question mark.

What evidence we do have, however, is alarming. The Cut cites a recent University of Washington study that found that 22 percent of parents’ attempts to cut down screen time sparked a negative reaction from kids under five. And in another study from Brigham Young University, 93 percent of parents reported that their toddlers would sometimes whine or throw tantrums when “transitioning away from media.”

Experts are mixed on whether the devices are provoking some newly negative response. 

“We frequently hear from parents who say, ‘When I ask my child to get off technology, they get very mad at me.’ That is true of almost anything that children find reinforcing,” Dave Anderson, a senior psychologist at the Child Mind Institute in New York City, told The Cut.

Anderson was skeptical of using the word addiction to describe what’s fueling iPad rages, noting that withdrawal symptoms of actual addiction don’t disappear within minutes. Kid’s minds just aren’t developed enough to handle having their favorite toy taken away from them, she said.

Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke, however, hasn’t hesitated to invoke the specter of addiction, calling screen devices a “digital drug” in an interview with Oprah. And Sarah Coyne, a professor of human development at Brigham Young, seemed to consider equating post-iPad rages to tantrums related to other pleasures outrageous. 

“I’m not sure how many children are struggling to function because their parents tell them to be done with their ice cream,” she told The Cut, adding that she’s seen addiction-like behavior in kids using devices as young as two years old.

If describing these patterns as signs of outright addictive behavior goes too far, there’s certainly there is a lot of evidence painting screen time’s cognitive effects. One study found that the more  babies and toddlers looked at screens each day, the more likely they were to miss key development goals, including fine motor skills and social skills.

The effects are no less worrying in older children. A study that followed tweens over four years found that increased screen time was a reliable predictor of ADHD diagnoses. Beyond iPad rages and worrying cognitive trends, there are other behaviors that illustrate the impact of device usage on children. In a survey of UK preschool school teachers, the teachers on average estimated that a third of their pupils didn’t know how to correctly use books — as in they literally couldn’t figure out that they had to turn the page. Instead, some reportedly tried to swipe or tap them.

More on mental health: Influential Tech Founder Says His Peers Are Suffering From Mass AI Psychosis

The post Kids Are Flying Into Lunatic Rages When Their iPads Are Taken Away appeared first on Futurism.

It’s no secret that many of the world’s top CEOs are obsessed with AI. By pursuing lofty goals of complete AI automation, these executives have created one of the largest financial bubbles in recent memory while transforming the job market into a barren wasteland, with little to show for their efforts so far.

As the top tech companies have yet to find a way to turn AI into a profitable venture, those decisions to go all-in on AI are looking increasingly delusional. According to Aaron Levie, CEO and founder of the massive cloud computing company Box, there’s a simple explanation for it: many of his colleagues are suffering from AI psychosis.

“CEOs are uniquely prone to AI psychosis because they’re sufficiently distant from the last mile of work that still has to happen to generate most value with AI,” Levie wrote on X-formerly-Twitter. Translation: AI-happy CEOs are out of touch with the rank-and-file workers tasked with making their AI ambitions come to life.

As an example, Levie offers cases in which corporate executives say “look I made this awesome product prototype” with an AI chatbot. “Yes but you didn’t have to review the code before it went into production and fix a bunch of issues,” he retorts.

Whether “AI psychosis” is the best metaphor for this concept is up for debate. Arguably the most common definition of AI psychosis is that it’s a phenomenon where extreme interactions with AI triggers or amplifies delusions or paranoia, sometimes already existing and sometimes seemingly newly cooked up with the AI. The symptoms can be extreme, with AI chatbots convincing victims that they’re communing with God-like entities, or have singlehandedly uncovered a grave threat to humankind.

There are indeed some executives who seem to fit the bill. Last year, Futurism reported that colleagues of Geoff Lewis, managing partner of the multi-billion dollar investment firm Bedrock, were concerned that he was suffering from a break with reality after spending too much time with ChatGPT (ironically, Bedrock was an early investor in OpenAI.) In that case, Lewis had claimed to be mapping an incomprehensible “non-governmental system” that was designed to disrupt his life.

That said, there’s a major gap between an exec believing they’re targeted by a vast conspiratorial network and an exec buying into AI hype. The phenomenon Levie is identifying might better fall under “organizational blindness,” a known phenomenon where leaders of a company find themselves disconnected from the reality of work on the ground. Coupled with a ravenous hunger for profit, this kind of tunnel vision seems to be exactly what we’re seeing in companies around the globe.

In today’s world, many executives and managers operate at an abstract level, working via spreadsheets, emails and Zoom meetings. This is different from concrete labor, meaning the specific, friction-heavy tasks that workers perform, like writing code or wiring server racks. When a board-room full of executives loses sight of this tangible labor — by failing to consider the kinds of tasks AI chatbots are actually good at, for example — it can certainly create a break from material reality, though one driven by social factors rather than psychological.

In other words, there are two possibilities: either the world’s CEOs are losing their minds, or they’re just succumbing to the latest manifestation of capitalism run amok. Occam’s razor probably suggests the latter.

More on AI and CEOs: 99 Percent of CEOs Are Preparing to Lay Off Workers and Replace Them With AI Within Two Years, Survey Finds

The post Influential Tech Founder Says His Peers Are Suffering From Mass AI Psychosis appeared first on Futurism.

How much should we sleep each night? It’s the age-old question that makes almost nobody happy, since most of us know at the back of our chronically shut-eye deprived minds that we don’t get enough of it. 

But on the flip-side, new research suggests there’s such a thing as excessive sleep, too. In a study published in the journal Nature, scientists narrowed down a “sweet spot” of between 6.4 and 7.8 hours of sleep per night. Sleep durations that fall too much on either side of that, the study found, were associated with accelerated aging.

This cuts against the traditional wisdom that everyone should get around eight hours of sleep per night, and it also notably contrasts with some studies that found that less than seven hours of sleep per night is associated with a higher risk of negative health outcomes like high blood pressure and heart disease.

“Too little sleep is bad and too much sleep is bad,” Mark Lachs, co-chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, who wasn’t involved in the study, told the Washington Post. “It is a Goldilocks kind of phenomenon.”

The optimal amount of sleep is highly dependent on the individual, with some needing as few as six hours, and others as much as nine. A rare few — less than one percent of the population — thrive off of just four hours of sleep per night with no health consequences; scientists are still trying to understand why, with current research focusing on a mutation in a gene that modulates the production of orexin, a hormone that regulates sleep. (Whatever the cause, we’re envious.)

In this latest work, the researchers analyzed biomedical data on 500,000 volunteers collected from another long-term study, the UK Biobank, with the goal of developing a biological aging clock for the body’s organs. They examined data including self-reported sleep durations, MRI images of organs, and blood plasma and metabolomics data.

“The hypothesis is that different organs, even within the same person, age at different rates,” lead author Junhao Wen, an assistant professor of radiology at Columbia University, told WaPo.

Their analysis found a U-shaped pattern between sleep and biological age gaps, with smaller deviations from the sweet spot associated with less aging, and larger deviations with more.

Both sides of the U were intriguing. Less than six hours of sleep was associated with increased risk of disease and all-cause mortality, which is lower than the typical seven hours of sleep that other studies have set as the minimum. And on the other side, these negative effects were also associated with more than eight hours of sleep.

There are limitations to the study. The UK Biobank data set skews mostly toward people of White European ancestry. And the researchers say there’s more of a direct link with the effect of short sleep, because they can’t rule out that a worse biological aging clock, or essentially poorer health, could be partially causing longer sleep instead of vice versa, as when someone who’s sick or depressed may need to sleep longer than someone who’s healthy.

Chances are that you need to get a little more sleep, but, according to these findings, probably not as much as you think.

“I would treat this as guidance,” Wen told WaPo. “The key point is consistent sleep time, around 6 to 8 hours per day. We know that’s going to do good for your overall health.”

More on health: They Held a New Olympics Where Athletes Can Take as Many Drugs and Steroids as They Want, and the Funniest Possible Thing Happened

The post More Than This Many Hours of Sleep Is Linked to Early Death, Scientists Find appeared first on Futurism.

For years now, organizers of a controversial sporting event called the Enhanced Games have been promising to push the limits of human athleticism by allowing participants to use whatever performance enhancing drugs they want.

The event, backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel and fellow billionaire biohacker Christian Angermayer, was meant to prove a highly contentious point: that regimens of stimulants, growth hormones, and peptides — many of which can be bought directly through the event’s website, naturally — can unlock previously unattainable levels of human performance and beat world records in the process.

Unfortunately for them, the spectacle didn’t go according to plan. The event, which took place over the weekend, saw dozens of athletes go head to head in a number of Olympic disciplines with the hope of proving that synthetically enhancing their bodies would allow them to swim and sprint faster, not to mention lift heavier weights.

But instead, as The Guardian reports, three of the event’s winners weren’t actually taking any banned substances at all — a hilarious development that put a major dent into the organizers’ boisterous marketing.

However, there was one widely-disputed claim of a world record, which won’t be recognized by international sporting bodies. Greek athlete Kristian Gkolomeev beat Australian swimmer Cameron McEvoy’s 50 meter freestyle record by a mere 0.07 seconds, covering the distance in just 20.81 seconds. And even that claim is a bit muddy: while Gkolomeev was using several banned substances, he was also relying on a special swimming suit that was banned in professional sports over a decade ago.

Organizers were seemingly desperate to run a victory lap in their efforts to paint the event as the “Olympics of the future.”

“We have arrived in mainstream culture,” said Enhanced Games CEO ­Maximilian Martin in a statement. “We are here to stay. We have changed the world tonight.”

“With the power of enhancements we can prove we are the best we can ever think of and you are ­living proof of that,” he added while addressing an audience of influencers and biotech investors.

Other athletes were far less impressed. McEvoy, who broke the 50 meter freestyle swimming world record in March, shot back following Gkolomeev’s performance.

“Seriously?! That’s all you got!” a meme he posted to Instagram following the event reads.

Meanwhile, Icelandic strongman Thor Bjornsson, of “Game of Thrones” fame, failed to beat his own deadlifting record of 1124 pounds, further putting a damper on the event.

In short, the Enhanced Games had embarrassingly little to show in terms of pushing the envelope with the use of potentially dangerous and highly controversial performance enhancing drugs. If anything, the event appears to have had the opposite of the intended effect.

“The whole pitch was that drugs would shatter the limits of clean sport,” one user tweeted. “Instead they proved the gap between juiced and clean is now seven hundredths of a second — in a suit banned 17 years ago.”

“The only thing they actually proved was how good the clean athletes already are,” the user added.

More on the games: Peter Thiel Funding New Olympics Where Athletes Can Take Performance Enhancing Drugs

The post They Held a New Olympics Where Athletes Can Take as Many Drugs and Steroids as They Want, and the Funniest Possible Thing Happened appeared first on Futurism.

Longtime Cybertruck watchers might remember a peculiar day back before the brutalist pickup was even released, when Tesla CEO Elon Musk randomly tweeted that the vehicle would function as a rudimentary flotation device.

“It will even float for a while,” he wrote at the time.

It wasn’t a one-off claim. Musk later boasted that the vehicle would be able to “traverse at least 100m [330 feet] of water as a boat.”

“Mostly just need to upgrade cabin door seals,” he claimed, writing at another point that the “Cybertruck will be waterproof enough to serve briefly as a boat, so it can cross rivers, lakes and even seas that aren’t too choppy.”

The Cybertruck finally did make it to market, where it’s suffered a seemingly endless parade of recalls, embarrassing incidents, and dismal sales figures.

Unsurprisingly, all Musk’s bluster about the truck serving as a makeshift schooner turned out to be flimflam. In fact, it quickly emerged that just getting wet in a car wash could brick the thing.

To muddy the waters further, the company ended up adding what it calls “Wade Mode” to the vehicles, which sets the truck’s ride height to the highest level, ostensibly so it can ford creeks and streams.

All that mixed messaging clearly got jumbled for a Texas man, though, who activated Wade Mode and drove his Cybertruck into a lake. Unsurprisingly, things didn’t go well for him.

“Yesterday, [Grapevine Police Department] and [Grapevine Fire Department] were dispatched to Grapevine Lake, where a Tesla Cybertruck was stranded in the water,” police in Grapevine, Texas, wrote on X-formerly-Twitter. “The driver drove into the lake to use the ‘Wade Mode’ feature when the vehicle became disabled.”

Not only is the man’s vehicle swamped — as the cops showed in an amazing attached photo — but he’s in legal trouble as well.

“The passengers abandoned the vehicle and the driver was arrested,” they wrote.

More on the Cybertruck: Cybertruck Recalled to Keep Its Wheels From Flying Off While Driving

The post Man Drives Cybertruck Into Lake to Test Elon Musk’s “Boat” Claims, and It Went About as Well as You’d Guess appeared first on Futurism.

Daraxonrasib, which nearly doubled patients' survival time, fights the disease in a new way. It bear-hugs a cancer protein that drives cell growth.