Search headlines

Does public health *need* MAHA?

Last week, our friend Dr. Craig Spencer sparked an ongoing volatile discussion with his Atlantic article “Public Health Needs MAHA.” Some have come out in strong dissent, others are cheering, and others are simply lamenting that we find ourselves in such a divided world to begin with. We will dare to dip our toes in these controversial waters, too. Does public health need MAHA? We think in some ways yes, and in other ways, no. MAHA leaders versus the everyday MAHA supporter The vitriol in this debate mostly comes from one collapsed distinction: the leadership of MAHA is not necessarily the same as the people who support it. Say “MAHA” and most people picture RFK Jr. Fair enough, as he coined the term and holds most of the power. And, yes, some MAHA followers treat Kennedy as something close to a saint. But talk to the grassroots, and it’s not a monolith. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. People who distrust vaccines and vaccine supporters. It’s a wide, eclectic coalition. The data backs this too: 4 in 10 Americans support the movement—that’s a lot of people! But according to polls, vaccines and medical choice (the issues most tied to Kennedy personally) are cited by only 4% as their reason for supporting the movement. For many, the motivations are much broader. Many MAHA supporters are signing up for the idea that “something needs to change” with health in this country. They’re asking good-faith questions about corporate influence on our health systems, health care costs, nutrition, chemicals, and clean air and water. These are all questions that plenty of public health professionals recognize as legitimate and also care about very deeply. Blurring the lines between the leadership and grassroots does real damage in two important ways: It hands the 4 in 10 exactly the narrative already fed—that the health ecosystem doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, and paints every critic with the same brush. It gives the actual bad actor more power. RFK Jr. has done irreparable damage and can’t be trusted. What the MAHA movement gets right A healthy population is something the public health field was literally built on, and many of these topics are things we have dedicated our lives to. Yet the MAHA movement has captivated nearly half the country in a way the public health establishment has failed to achieve. So that means MAHA is doing something right. Some of it may be timing (after a Covid-19 pandemic and deep frustration and mistrust with institutions). The movement also does three other things really well: 1. It gives a new, louder voice to system failures. While MAHA is not a monolith, one theme stays consistent across their stories: the system failed them. For some, it was the system that flooded their communities with opioids and then walked away. For others, it was the system that let their business collapse during Covid with no safety net in sight. For others still, it was the system that failed to help them manage a complex chronic illness, bouncing them from physician to physician without any real answers. And in many ways, our health ecosystems are failing Americans. Why are medical bills so incomprehensible? Why do some kids get a healthy school lunch and others don’t? Why do an epidemiologist and a MD/PhD student have to start newsletters in the middle of the biggest public health emergency in a century, just so people can get straight information? Because the systems failed. This deep-seated frustration driving many Americans to search for solutions elsewhere needs to be recognized. 2. MAHA has brilliant comms central to their efforts. MAHA figured out something most health institutions still have not: the information landscape changed. It’s participatory now, not top-down; influence runs through many nodes in a community, not one institution; and storytelling and telling audiences “what you really think” moves people more than data dumps do. MAHA goes where audiences are listening, using podcasts, social media, and memes in ways most health institutions would scoff at—but it works. 3. They are very good at organizing. A MAHA meeting feels like a rally: energy, speakers, music, and most importantly, an action for everyone. Someone’s writing the next policy brief, someone’s seeding a narrative, someone knows the next legislative deadline, someone’s sending the text messages for a campaign. None of this is new (ask the civil rights movement), but MAHA knows it works and has capitalized on it. What MAHA gets wrong This list could be much longer, and this newsletter has spent a lot of time covering it, but here are a few things: Poor use of scientific evidence. This is the fundamental problem with many MAHA policies: the hype outpaces the science, and experts are often villainized for pointing this out. MAHA leadership has traded real solutions for cheap wins. For example, instead of taking on the powerful food industry and passing real reforms, it has celebrated french fries made of beef tallow and taken out artificial dyes from still very sugary children’s cereal. These changes won’t move the needle on America’s diet. MAHA leadership has tried to dismantle vaccine access in the U.S. While many MAHA supporters emphasize other issues, the effort to change vaccine policy has become MAHA’s signature effort. This is not surprising given RFK Jr.’s extensive track record campaigning against vaccines. It has rallied behind the wrong leader. RFK Jr. has a decades-long track record of villifying doctors, scientists, and public health workers, well before he became HHS secretary. He is known for his decades-long work sowing distrust in vaccines as well as life-saving treatments like antiretroviral therapy for HIV. This is not a serious person who can move the needle on health in the U.S, and he has already done serious damage. Public health needs more than defense Defending the evidence is absolutely necessary so health in the U.S. doesn’t move further backward. The public health establishment is very good at defense. The problem is this defense often sounds like defending the status quo, which has failed many people. Public health needs to offer an alternative to RFK Jr.’s MAHA—one that is rooted in evidence, truly listens to and addresses people’s frustrations, and has innovative solutions and the courage to change the systems. How do we get there? Find common ground. Do you know what most people care most about? The abysmal cost of healthcare. Start there. Fight for the human loudly. Too often, communications and engagement center on science with a capital S, funding mechanisms, or the CDC/FDA/NIH. Not the person. So the public doesn’t see themselves in it. Instead, they see people fighting for the very powerful systems that they feel negatively impact their health and well-being. Let the public feel and hear that you see their frustrations, you get it, and you’re fighting for them within the system. Recognize when pro-science messages are alienating people. Facts absolutely matter, but angrily venting only alienates people further. Our friend Elisabeth Marnik recently wrote a New York Times article about her experience growing up unvaccinated and how listening and empathetic conversation are the only ways to reach people that really work (a position backed by communication science). Her comments section was full of hateful comments from pro-vaccine individuals attacking her for daring to suggest we approach vaccine-hesitant individuals with empathy. It is possible to both stand firm behind scientific evidence and empathize with people who don’t trust it. Lean into politics smartly. Often, public health has shied away from politics: Don’t touch it, lest you get burned. But this fails to recognize that the third rail is what fuels the train: who is elected determines our budgets, our priorities, and our authority. Being political means being very savvy in strategy on both sides of the aisle, knowing your audience, and recognizing that political capital is as scarce as financial resources and needs to be allocated accordingly. Bottom line So does public health need MAHA? That’s not really the right question. Public health has a responsibility not to dismiss 40% of the country who feel heard by this movement and are frustrated that the system has failed them. And it has a responsibility to stick to the evidence and recognize MAHA leadership for what it is: a danger to our nation’s health. Both can, and should, be done. Love, YLE and KP A big thanks to Craig Spencer, who had the courage to put his neck out there to start a much-needed discussion at such a critical moment—one that is determining the identity of an entire field. Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD is completing an emergency medicine residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication. In her free time, she writes the newsletters You Can Know Things debunking health myths and rumors and The Public Health Roundup. Views expressed belong to KP, not her employer. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe

Jul 31 • 6:30 AM EDT • Health • yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

Hyperwear Names Dr. Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, as Science Advisor

/PRNewswire/ -- Hyperwear, the functional fitness brand behind the Hyper Vest weighted vest, Hyper Ruck, and SandBell training tools, today announced that...

Jul 27 • 8:43 AM EDT • Science • prnewswire.com

What England's local councils tell us about fragmenting politics

Even the most ardent advocate for local democracy would concede that council chambers are not always the most exciting places. Subscribe Whether it’s planning meetings, motions or resolutions, you’d be forgiven for switching off. Unless it’s lockdown and we’re talking about standing orders, of course. Remember Jackie Weaver, who infamously “had no authority here” at a chaotic parish council Zoom call in 2021? Yet, as a general rule since then, council meetings rarely make the headlines beyond local papers and news websites. Reform’s success After Reform’s stunning success at the local elections in May though, the leader of the party’s group on Kirklees Council suddenly found she’d gone viral online for admitting that she didn’t actually understand council procedures. “I don’t understand the constitution”, Councillor Sarah Wood, pictured above, told the council chamber. “I have not had sufficient time to read that as yet. I don’t understand what standing orders are, what they’re made up of, nor do I understand what an amendment is.” Share Channel 4 News Councillor Wood later defended her comments to the BBC, and said that “new councillors and not just us, are coming from jobs”. She claimed that the sharing of the clip mocking her online was an example of “Reform-bashing”. She added: “Yes, we need to know procedures. Yes we need to do the homework. And we have addressed that now and we have put that right.” So, with standing orders getting another moment in the spotlight, not to mention the fracturing and fragmentation from May’s results, we set out to find out how new councillors are doing across England in this new political landscape. New political landscape Where better to start then than Kirklees, in West Yorkshire. Reform is the largest party, the council is under no overall control and has chosen a new leader - Sarah Wood - after two failed attempts to elect one. It is difficult to secure interviews with new Reform councillors, but John Hardie, pictured below, told us it’s been a “whirlwind” since being elected in May. He represents the Dalton ward and told us the party’s lack of political experience hasn’t been a hindrance. “We’ve come with lots of experience, lots of business experience and life experience, and it’s been good, actually, too. And to mix with other councillors who have been in the political world, and we can learn from each other.” Indeed, more parties are now having a say than ever before. In Manchester, the Green Party followed up their victory in the parliamentary by-election in Gorton and Denton by gaining 17 seats on the city council. That makes them the official opposition to Labour, who have long dominated Manchester City Council. [ ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-landmark-green-by-election-win) [ How landmark Green by-election win could change British politics ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-landmark-green-by-election-win) Krishnan Guru-Murthy · Feb 27 [ Read full story ](https://channel4news.substack.com/p/how-landmark-green-by-election-win) Thirza Amina Asanga-Rae, pictured below, is one of those new councillors, representing Moss Side. We asked her how being the official opposition can make a difference. She said: “I think even the fact that we’ve made history in what we’ve done, it’s been a 50-year stronghold of Labour in Manchester, and now that we’ve broken that and chipped in that, there’s real hope that we can not only run the council in the future, but currently hold them to account. So, I think that’s powerful. It’s just going to help shape and build what I call the green wave.” The reality, though, is that several newly elected councillors across the country have already left their roles through resignations, suspensions or defections. ‘It’s a slog’ Asanga-Rae adds: “It’s a job, it’s a slog. Obviously, we’re going through hard times. Austerity is real. We’re talking about food, child poverty, furniture poverty. The list is endless, and I think people who come into a councillor role need to be willing to help, really roll the sleeves up and get involved and help, and I think a lot of the career politicians, who think it’s the ‘la-di-da’ position, get in and realise I’m not going to do this work and bounce.” Share Although Manchester still has a clear majority, many councils, including Kirklees, are now under no overall control. That is perhaps the strongest sign of the political fragmentation we are seeing. Burnley is another example of this. Reform is now the largest party, yet they’re not part of the power-sharing coalition on this council - the Liberal Democrats and a local group of independents. Zulkernehn Hayat, pictured below, is part of The Independent Group. He represents Queensgate ward and told us all councils can benefit from having more independent councillors. ‘This is where I was brought up’ He said: “This is my home. This is Burnley. This is where I was brought up. Why do I need to get approval from somebody in a head office down south somewhere, you know? “This is my biggest argument. If okay, my neighbour comes to me with an issue, I can then take that straight to the council, because I don’t need to get approval from anywhere else. And this is the benefit of being independent.” So, while voters will always inevitably want quick results, perhaps spare a thought for the newly-elected councillors who are still navigating local government - one standing order at a time. Subscribe Share Channel 4 News Leave a comment

Jul 27 • 3:01 AM EDT • Politics • channel4news.substack.com

Red Sox Minor Lines: Kristian Campbell stays hot

Worcester: W, 6-5 (BOX SCORE) The WooSox now have 45 hits in their last three games. Although this game was close and the Jumbo Shrimp (Marlins AAA) were resilient, tagging every relief pitcher for runs in a bullpen game after Tyler Uberstine opened things up with a scoreless first, the WooSox simply just stayed one […]

Jul 25 • 11:30 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

See the Full Org Chart for the McBee Businesses After Steve Sr.’s Shocking Decision About Kristi

Learn who Steve McBee Sr. named as interim president while he was in prison as the family reacts on The McBee Dynasty: Real American Cowboys.

Jul 20 • 10:10 PM EDT • Business • bravotv.com

After an Hours-Long Commute Landed Her in the ER, She Started Her Own Local Business. It Now Has a Year-Long Wait List. Here's How She Did It.

Cosee Home founder Kristina Leigh Johnson shares the mindset and tactics that took her from solopreneur to leading a home-building empire.

Jul 15 • 10:00 AM EDT • Business • entrepreneur.com

Grizzlies reportedly trade Ja Morant to Trail Blazers for Jerami Grant, Kris Murray

Jun 29 • 4:36 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Making Our Own Luck

We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.

Jun 25 • 4:48 PM EDT • Science • goodscience.substack.com

Kristen Connolly Signs With Strand Entertainment (EXCLUSIVE)

Actress Kristen Connolly ('The Summer I Turned Pretty') has inked with Strand Entertainment for management.

May 28 • 3:11 PM EDT • Entertainment • deadline.com

The IX Sports Podcast featuring USF coach Kristy Curry

On The IX Sports Podcast, new USF head coach Kristy Curry discusses the transfer portal and the importance of relationships in recruiting.

May 25 • 3:04 PM EDT • Sports • theixsports.com

Red Sox, Jarren Duran defeat Royals 7-1

With Kris Bubic out with some elbow discomfort, the Kansas City Royals turned to ye olde “bullpen game” against the Boston Red Sox. While the bullpen held for most of the game, the Royals offense stayed sleepy and the Red Sox eventually did their damage, beating the Royals in a 7-1 slog. Kansas City turned […]

May 19 • 11:17 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

How one Pocatello business is helping eastern Idaho save water, one lawn at a time

POCATELLO – Amid a water shortage and emergency drought in place across Idaho, a Pocatello business offers homeowners a way to water their lawn more efficiently and help conserve water. RELATED | Idaho declares drought emergency for all 44 counties as snowpack hits record lows Canopy Lawn Care, now in its second year of operation […]

May 18 • 5:23 PM EDT • Business • eastidahonews.com

Whole Health services improve outcomes for Veterans

Veterans across VA are seeing meaningful improvements in their health and well-being through Whole Health services.

May 16 • 4:30 PM EDT • Health • news.va.gov

Cameron Young shoots 63 at Quail Hollow, trails Alex Fitzpatrick by 2

Fitzpatrick was at 14-under 199 through 54 holes, one shot ahead of Norway's Kristoffer Reitan after each shot 64.

May 10 • 12:07 PM EDT • Sports • spectrumlocalnews.com