Bobby Jr. is wrong about fat

Why It Still Makes Sense to Limit Saturated Fats

By Joshua Cohen

Maybe that's where he got his brain worm

After repeated delays, the United States Department of Health and Human Services published new dietary guidelines on Jan. 7, which for the first time prioritize certain sources of saturated fats. “We are ending the war on saturated fats,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared at a press conference. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary lamented that for decades there’s been a “myopic focus on demonizing natural, healthy saturated fats.”

While the new guidelines say that generally, “saturated fat consumption should not exceed 10% of total daily calories,” the document’s new food pyramid features red meat, cheese, and whole milk at or near the top. The guidelines also advise Americans who cook with oils to use those “with essential fatty acids,” while offering butter and beef tallow as additional options. Christopher Gardner, a professor at Stanford University and a member of the most recent guidelines advisory committee, told NPR that he is "very disappointed in the new pyramid that features red meat and saturated fat sources at the very top, as if that's something to prioritize. It does go against decades and decades of evidence and research."

These are significant changes. For more than 45 years, the guidelines have cautioned against overconsumption of saturated fats. And while nutrition research is notorious for producing conflicting findings on the risks and benefits of a range of foods — including fats — this particular pivot has many experts worried. This is partly because the health risks associated with higher consumption of saturated fats are well-documented, and partly because the new guidance could inadvertently create a situation in which foods such as red meat end up displacing healthier fiber-filled options.

The guidelines are a cornerstone of federal food and nutrition guidance, updated every five years to reflect changes in science. National dietary guidance has historically been quite impactful. Health care providers and dietitians refer to them when advising patients. The guidelines also influence federal nutrition policy and programs and inform school lunch menus.

HHS announces unprecedented overhaul of US childhood vaccine schedule

Two articles: Kids don't need no stinkin' vaccinations

Trump and Bobby Jr. seem intent on bringing back infectious diseases for reasons unknown

Stephanie Soucheray, MA and Liz Szabo, MA

Federal officials today announced an unprecedented overhaul of the US childhood immunization schedule, paring the number of universally recommended immunizations from 17 to 11.

The new vaccination policy, which takes effect immediately, is modeled after the schedule used by Denmark. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will continue to recommend 11 shots for all children, six others will be recommended only for children deemed to be at high risk of infection, said the agency’s acting director, Jim O’Neill.

A third group of vaccines will be available through “shared clinical decision-making” with medical providers. 

Public health experts immediately decried the change. Experts said there’s no reason to change a system that has prevented 1.1 million deaths over the past 30 years.

“Abandoning the U.S. evidence-based process is a dangerous and potentially deadly decision for Americans,” said Jason M. Goldman, MD, president of the American College of Physicians. “The evidence is clear that vaccines prevent deaths, hospitalizations, and spread of disease.”

It is happening here. So what are you going to do about it?

All the signs are here

Aaron Regunberg

I’ve had four thoughts that I haven’t been able to get out of my head this week.

First, it’s clear that if there hadn’t been video of the execution of Renee Nicole Good, ICE would have just murdered her, lied, and moved on. This is, in fact, what is almost certainly happening all around our country. We are outraged about this particular instance of wanton violence because we saw it. We should keep in mind what this implies about everything we’re not seeing.

Second, if a masked thug can do this to Good—can shoot her three times in the face, and call her a “fucking bitch” as she bleeds out, and then be named a hero by Trump and his entire administration—if ICE can do that to a friendly mother in a car filled with her kids’ stuffies who told those thugs explicitly, “I’m not mad at you,” then there is nobody they can’t do this to. Every one of us is vulnerable to being murdered in cold blood, and then having the president of the United States say we were domestic terrorists who deserved to die.

Third, we need to be clear—and loud—right now with Democratic leaders that “we shouldn’t have a Gestapo in this country” isn’t a radical position. It is actually the only non-radical position one can have. 

Dismantling this unaccountable, overtly fascist domestic militia is nonnegotiable, and we need to insist on this commitment in all of our communications with every Democratic official who wants to keep their seat.

Fourth, particularly after this week, it is essentially impossible to deny that we have crossed the Rubicon—that “it” is, in fact, happening here. A quick survey of the developments leading to every major fascist takeover of a state in the 20th century illustrates the degree to which all the pieces are currently on the board:

• Legal mechanism to label your political opposition domestic terrorists? That’s quite literally what Trump’s NSPM-7 directive does. Check.
• Internal deployment of a quasi-official armed militia with personal loyalty to the fascist leader rather than civic loyalty to the state? That’s a perfect description of ICE’s massive expansion and deployment to American cities. Check.
• Justification for the use of lethal force against ideological opponents? That’s exactly what we saw with the administration’s disgusting lies about Good’s murder (among many other examples). Check.
• Rapid dissolution of domestic political constraints? We’ve got Congress essentially disappearing and giving up its power of the purse, while the Supreme Court is already fully in Trump’s pocket. Check.
• Expansion of youth indoctrination programs? We’ve got the Hitler Youth—er, I mean, Turning Point USA—expanding into high schools, sometimes with backing from the state. Check.
• Shift from public control of expenditures to private? This week Trump announced his administration will place the oil money it is looting from Venezuela into external bank accounts outside of the U.S. Treasury—literally a system for collecting personal imperial tribute that Trump can dispense extra-constitutionally. Check.
• Withdrawal from international treaties? There’s too many to count, including 66 additional ones this week. Check.
• Massive military expansion? Trump just unilaterally announced he wants a $1.5 trillion military budget. Check.
• Annexation threats? Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his likely future takeover of Greenland are arguably even less justified than Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland and the Anschluss. Check.

I know I’m not saying anything new here. But it’s worthwhile, sometimes, to step back and get a bird’s eye look at the landscape. When you do so, it becomes undeniable: It is happening here.

Everything explained

Classic Trump: blame the victim

Dear Leader sends encouragement to the people of Minnesota: "The day of reckoning and retribution is coming"

New federal loan limits will worsen America’s nursing shortage and leave patients waiting longer for care

Trump worsens the shortage of nurses

Kymberlee Montgomery, Drexel University and Mary Ellen Smith Glasgow, Duquesne University

There is growing need for nurses in the United States – but not enough nurses currently working, or students training to become nurses, to promptly see all of the patients who need medical care.

Tens of thousands of nurses have left practice since the pandemic, and many more plan to leave within a few years, according to the 2024 National Nursing Workforce Survey, which reviews the number of registered nurses working in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that there will be an average of 189,100 openings for registered nurses each year through 2032. In addition, there will be a need for approximately 128,400 new nurse practitioners by 2034 – making it the fastest-growing occupation in the country.

The tax and spending package signed into law in July 2025 will take effect on July 1, 2026. Among other things, it will likely make it even harder for people to take out loans and help pay for a graduate nursing degree.

We are nurses and professors who oversee large nursing programs at universities. We believe that new restrictions on how nursing students can take out federal loans to pay for their education are likely to prevent people from pursuing advanced nursing roles.

These new regulations will cause the shortage of practicing nurses to intensify – in turn, worsening the quality of care patients receive.

Clinics may offer fewer appointments, hospitals may be forced to reduce services, and nursing programs may have to accept fewer students. As a result, some patients will wait longer, travel farther, or not see nurses altogether.

Paying for nursing education

Someone can become a registered nurse with an associate or bachelor’s degree. But a graduate-level degree is needed for other nursing roles – including nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetists and nurse midwives.

Nursing school costs vary greatly, depending on which degree students are seeking and whether they attend a public or private school. Roughly three-quarters of graduate nursing students rely on student loans and graduate with debt to pay for programs that can range from US$30,000 to $120,000 or more.

We have found that nursing students, unlike medical students, often work while enrolled in their programs, stretching their education over longer periods and accumulating additional costs.

The tax and spending law eliminates several federal grants and loan repayment programs for nurses and aspiring nurse educators – faculty members who teach nursing students in colleges and universities.

The law also sharply restricts how much money graduate nursing students can borrow through federal student loans.

Approximately 59% of 1,550 nurses surveyed in December 2025 said that they are now less likely to pursue a graduate degree with the new borrowing limit changes.

A fractured system

Nurse practitioners provide the majority of primary care in the U.S. – particularly in rural areas and communities with few physicians.

In addition, certified registered nurse anesthetists administer anesthesia for surgeries and procedures in many areas. Meanwhile, certified nurse-midwives deliver babies and provide prenatal and postpartum care, especially in areas where there are few obstetricians.

Long waits for new patient appointments are now common across the country, with national surveys showing that patients often wait weeks to months before they receive medical care.

About a decade ago, new patients could often book appointments within days to a few weeks; but today, there are fewer available medical appointments and medical professionals to treat them. This is particularly true for many medical practices serving women, older adults and rural communities.

One of us – Dr. Montgomery – is a women’s health nurse practitioner who routinely sees patients wait months for new appointments in the mid-Atlantic. These delays translate into postponed cancer screenings, delayed medication management and untreated chronic conditions.

Research consistently shows that nursing shortages are associated with worse patient outcomes, including higher mortality and delayed treatment.

Federal judge grants Rhode Island wind company reprieve from Trump pause

Court rules Trump is wrong on wind - again

By Ariana Figueroa and Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

A federal judge gave a temporary greenlight Monday to a mostly constructed $5 billion Revolution Wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island, reversing a late December order from the Trump administration that halted work.

Judge Royce C. Lamberth rejected the Trump administration’s national security arguments, finding they didn’t provide “a sufficient explanation” for issuing a Dec. 22 stop work order on Revolution Wind, a 65-turbine project already 87% completed.  He found the entire 704-megawatt project would be imperiled if he did not order work to resume and issued a preliminary injunction to block the administration’s pause.

Lamberth was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan.

Project developers along with state attorneys general in Rhode Island and Connecticut filed new motions in an existing federal lawsuit in January after the Interior Department last month suspended construction. Four other projects off the coasts of Massachusetts, Virginia and New York were also subject to the stop work order. Rhode Island’s is the first to be overturned.

Construction will resume “as soon as possible,” Meaghan Wims, a spokesperson for Orsted A/S, project co-developer, said in a statement Monday.

COVID continues to exact heavy toll on older US adults

COVID has NOT gone away - it kills 100,000+ Americans every year

Laine Bergeson

Even after the COVID-19 public health emergency ended in May 2023, the virus continued to cause millions of illnesses and more than 100,000 deaths annually from October 2022 to September 2024, with the majority of severe outcomes and deaths concentrated among older adults, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Using hospitalization data from the COVID-19 Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which covers approximately 10% of the US population, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research team estimated that COVID caused roughly 43.6 million illnesses, 10 million outpatient visits, 1.1 million hospitalizations, and 101,300 deaths during the 2022–23 respiratory illness season. 

In the following season, COVID-related illnesses declined to roughly 33 million, outpatient visits fell to 7.7 million, and hospitalizations dropped to 879,100. But the number of deaths in the 2023–24 respiratory season—an estimated 100,800—remained essentially the same.

Adults 65 years and older shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden. Although they make up less than 20% of the US population, older adults accounted for nearly half (47.5%) of all COVID illnesses, roughly two-thirds (67.5%) of hospitalizations, and over 80% of deaths (81.3%) during the study period. On average, approximately 1 in 100 adults aged 65 years and older were hospitalized for COVID each year.

January 6, 2021—and the Presidency that Followed—did Not have to Be

The New York Times’ Silencing of Mental Health Experts

Dr. Bandy X. Lee

The New York Times Editorial Board published an exceptional, big-picture view of the current presidency with the image that follows.

This has been the perspective of mental health experts from the beginning, as we concern ourselves with underlying dangerousness or unfitness, far before consideration of political affiliation or societal rank. Medical facts are facts, which this article does an admirable job in presenting.

However, it should go further and acknowledge, however inconvenient, its contribution to our current predicament. The editorial notes about January 6, 2021:

It was a day that should live in infamy. Instead, it was the day President Trump’s second term began to take shape.

I would go further back: the true day of infamy occurred when the same Times Editorial Board—unfortunately—caused us to go from being the number one topic of national conversation to being blacked out of all major media. With this, the nation went from a true possibility of addressing a mental health crisis with a mental health intervention, to the current dystopian distortion of reality itself.

This took a concerted effort, defying public demand and reversing the uncommon openness toward the subject of mental health that the media displayed—when I was invited onto all the major network and cable news programs and interviewing fifteen hours a day, week after week. This astonishing absence of stigma reversed course, once the American Psychiatric Association (APA), under the “leadership” of past president Jeffrey Lieberman, aggressively spread disinformation about us.

This was partly in response to an earlier January 6—when the Guardian invited me to contribute a piece and published it in 2018—which, like all other articles by or about us at the time, became the number one article read that day, week, and weekend. I explained:

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President [keeps] within the letter of the Goldwater rule…. the personal health of a public figure is her private affair—until, that is, it becomes a threat to public health.

We were at the height of public demand, with my book being an instant and unprecedented New York Times bestseller of its kind. I was eventually invited to meet with more than fifty U.S. Congress members, who stated that they depended on us to “educate the public medically,” so that they could “intervene politically”—and indeed a Congressional bill was rapidly gaining ground. This bill would have created an “other body” that included psychiatrists, to replace the cabinet for implementing the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, a provision for a president who is unable to perform the duties of office.

To this day I am convinced that, without the intervention of the APA and the Times, we would have succeeded in having a rational, mental health intervention for a mental health problem. And instead of becoming the most bewildering “Banana Republic” the world has seen, we would have been globally praised for handling a difficult situation, setting standards for other nations.

Trump leaves his mark on Washington DC

 

Not making this up: Trump declares himself to be "Acting President of Venezuela"

What is it that Trump wants to steal from Greenland?

The Danish territory holds significant stores of oil, gas and minerals. But regulations and the extreme environment have kept the vast majority in the ground.

By Nicholas Kusnetz

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Even before U.S. forces seized Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump reiterated his long-stated desire to take control of Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory.

“We need Greenland for national security,” Trump said publicly last month.

Those comments took on new urgency after the military intervention in Venezuela. Within a day, Trump was again speaking of seizing control of Greenland. Now European leaders appear to be taking the president’s comments seriously.

The leaders of Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement saying that security in the Arctic should be achieved through cooperation by NATO allies, and reiterating the territory’s sovereignty.

“Greenland belongs to its people,” the statement said. “It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” 

Despite that statement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the administration was currently discussing how it might buy Greenland. In response to a question about military involvement, Leavitt said, “all options are always on the table.”

While Trump last month stressed that his interest in the Arctic island was driven by security, “not minerals,” members of his administration had previously listed Greenland’s mineral wealth as a reason to gain control.

Microplastics Burrow Into Blood Vessels and Fuel Heart Disease

Appears to be worse in men

By University of California - Riverside

New research led by biomedical scientists at the University of California, Riverside suggests that routine contact with microplastics — tiny particles released from packaging, clothing, and many plastic products — may speed up atherosclerosis, a condition in which arteries become clogged and can lead to heart attacks and strokes. In this study, the harmful effects appeared only in male mice, offering fresh insight into how microplastics could influence heart health in humans.

“Our findings fit into a broader pattern seen in cardiovascular research, where males and females often respond differently,” said lead researcher Changcheng Zhou, a professor of biomedical sciences in the UCR School of Medicine. “Although the precise mechanism isn’t yet known, factors like sex chromosomes and hormones, particularly the protective effects of estrogen, may play a role.”

Microplastics Found Throughout the Body and Environment

Microplastics have become nearly impossible to avoid. They are present in food, drinking water, and the air, and have even been detected inside the human body. Recent studies involving people have found microplastics embedded in atherosclerotic plaques and have linked higher concentrations to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Until now, however, it was unclear whether these particles actively damage arteries or simply accompany disease.

“It’s nearly impossible to avoid microplastics completely,” Zhou said. “Still, the best strategy is to reduce exposure by limiting plastic use in food and water containers, reducing single-use plastics, and avoiding highly-processed foods. There are currently no effective ways to remove microplastics from the body, so minimizing exposure and maintaining overall cardiovascular health — through diet, exercise, and managing risk factors — remains essential.”

How to avoid seeing disturbing content on social media and protect your peace of mind

Besides throwing your devices into the ocean

Annie Margaret, University of Colorado Boulder

When graphic videos go viral, like the recent fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. But there are steps you can take.

Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, not protect your peace of mind. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.

You do not have to watch every piece of content that crosses your screen, however. Protecting your own mental state is not avoidance or denial. As a researcher who studies ways to counteract the negative effects of social media on mental health and well-being, I believe it’s a way of safeguarding the bandwidth you need to stay engaged, compassionate and effective.