SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Answered " 183 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Scandal reshaped NC-11 race. Now, 3 candidates fight to represent WNC
After Chuck Edwards' censure, Jamie Ager, Jennifer Balkcom and Travis Groo offer sharply different visions for Western North Carolina.
Cottage cheese, sunscreen and pimple popping: Strange Health is back for season two
The Strange Health podcast is back for season two, investigating cottage cheese, sunscreen scares, pimple popping and the health questions you want answered.
Raptors Preseason Game 2: Everything Toronto Fixed Against the Clippers
Toronto answered a sloppy opener in Quebec City with a 114-106 win over the Los Angeles Clippers at Rogers Arena in Vancouver on Saturday night. It was the first win of the Raptors preseason, and the box score shows real changes from the 129-105 loss to Miami a week earlier. Kawhi Leonard sat out again …
Bears' Ben Johnson gives significant Caleb Williams injury update
Chicago Bears head coach Ben Johnson gives was asked about Caleb Williams' injury, and he answered.
Pearland mayor rejects NAACP boycott as political expert says he's handling council tensions smartly
Mayor Wiltz did not support a call for a boycott over his treatment but said questions need to be answered about what he says are restrictions on his authority.
The big unanswered question about Russia's 'plague' death
Russia says it is winding down precautionary measures taken after a lab worker at a plague research institute died. But what made officials think these were needed at all?
Review: Hellraiser: Revival (PS5) - Faithful Adaptation Let Down by Severe Gameplay Woes
You opened the box, we answered
Asked & Answered with Texas Business Court Judge Andrea Bouressa: On Joining a New Court
In this edition of Asked & Answered, Texas Business Court Judge Andrea Bouressa discusses her favorite day on the bench and what has surprised her about serving. She also shares what she hopes will come next for the court as it continues to grow.
Will Ben Affleck Get Join Politics Now? Animals Actor Has Answered
Ben Affleck’s latest movie Animals puts him in an unusual political role. He plays Mark Kimball, a mayoral candidate whose campaign is thrown into chaos when his son is kidnapped. While promoting the ...
Seven Things Scientists Learned In 100 Years
And the one huge question we still haven't answered!
What We Really Know About the Russian ‘Plague’ Case
Even though many questions remain unanswered, the death probably isn’t cause for panic.
Brazil: Lessons from a Disaster
By Antonio Martins (Outras Palavras) Defeats become deeper and more prolonged when we misunderstand what caused them, avoid correcting course, and embrace “solutions” that only compound our mistakes. Lula’s government and the Brazilian left suffered a disaster in Sunday’s election. Contrary to every poll, the president finished the first round 2.2 million votes behind Flávio Bolsonaro—and, more significantly, 3.4 million votes below his total four years ago, when the machinery of the state was working against him and in favor of his opponent. His vote share declined in 98 percent of Brazil’s municipalities. The PL, the main party of the far right, elected 121 deputies and 28 senators, becoming the largest caucus in both houses of Congress. The parties aligned with the Centrão—Brazil’s bloc of transactional center-right parties—were somewhat diminished, but will still hold roughly 250 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate. That will make it easier to assemble the majorities needed to amend the Constitution or impeach Supreme Federal Court justices. If elected, Flávio Bolsonaro could appoint four members of the Court, substantially altering its internal balance of power. What produced these results? How can the far right be prevented from consolidating them into a prolonged political hegemony? And what is the essential change of direction the left now needs? Explaining the Disaster Across the commercial media and the exuberant chaos of digital platforms, interpretations are multiplying. Some focus on specific episodes: Lula’s absence from the Globo debate, his very close relationship with Alexandre de Moraes, or his emphasis on issues supposedly remote from most people’s everyday concerns, such as rare earth minerals. Among the more systemic interpretations, three seem especially questionable. One argues that the principal defeat was not the left’s, since its congressional representation declined only slightly. The decisive movement captured at the ballot box, according to this view, was a shift within the right itself—from the more moderate and transactional forces of the Centrão toward the more ideological and radicalized forces of the PL and Novo. A second interpretation holds that the nature of electoral and political processes has changed. The material interests and aspirations of society, it argues, no longer play the central role they once did; they have given way to forms of subjective self-identification that the left has yet to understand. And a third concludes that, because of these two developments, we should expect a political winter: a prolonged period in which the far right and the broader right dominate Brazilian political life. There are important elements in all three interpretations. The problem lies in what they deny or leave out: Lula’s third government was a small-bore government. It offered the majorities that elected it neither a clearly better life nor reasons to believe again in politics and its power to transform society. These failures flowed from two fatal accommodations, which I will examine below. As a result, the government suffered a slow but steady erosion of support. And, as has happened in so many Western countries, it gave the far right the opportunity to present itself as anti-system and to benefit from popular frustration and distress. The interpretation that emphasizes the migration of votes from the center-right and traditional right toward the far right has been advanced, among others, by the courageous journalist Leonardo Sakamoto. In his UOL column on Monday, October 5, he highlights the miserable behavior of the traditional conservative parties. Over the past four years, they repeatedly joined forces with the “neo”-fascists, helping to “normalize” them—a criticism that could equally be directed at almost the entire corporate media. Believing they could use the far right as a stepping stone, they instead ended up partly devoured by it. This was especially true in the Senate, where the PL’s gain of 13 senators and Novo’s gain of two came at the expense of the PSD, which lost nine; the MDB, which lost two; the PSDB, which lost two; and the PP, which lost one. Sakamoto’s observation is accurate and necessary, but it leaves uncomfortable questions unanswered. Why did the erosion of the Centrão benefit the far right rather than, for example, producing growth for the left—as has happened so many times before, both in Brazil and elsewhere? The answer is not difficult. Throughout its four years in office, Lula’s third government was almost invariably associated with the Centrão. Here lies its first accommodation: accepting the limits imposed by conservative institutions; avoiding, as much as possible, any attempt to strain those limits through popular pressure; and believing only in the modest changes that could be squeezed through openings in Congress. The failure of the campaign to end the six-day workweek is emblematic. Lula could have electrified the presidential race by pairing it with a popular campaign for passage of the measure. Instead, he chose to place his hopes in the hands of Senate president Rodrigo Alcolumbre. He generated no mass mobilization, did not force his opponents onto an uncomfortable defensive, and won no victory. In September 2025, the government squandered the greatest of its many opportunities to shake up conservative power in Congress. Popular opposition to the so-called Shielding Amendment—which, if approved, would have restricted criminal proceedings against members of Congress—brought crowds into the streets, mobilized primarily by artists and social movements. This opened the possibility for a broader political education: a campaign that could begin exposing the limits and dysfunctions of Brazil’s political system while putting Bolsonaro’s movement on the defensive for its predictable support of political privilege. The amendment was defeated. But the executive branch then backed away from the fight. It remained associated with an institutional world widely seen as corrupt, elitist, and indifferent to ordinary people’s struggles. In doing so, it forfeited its credibility as a vehicle for the protest vote. On Sunday, it reaped the bitter fruits. Are We Doomed? Taking a different approach from Sakamoto, the philosopher Moysés Pinto Neto and other writers have drawn attention, in their first analyses of October 4, to the fragmentation of the public sphere produced by Big Tech platforms. Through their algorithms, these platforms present each person with a different view of social reality. As a consequence, it becomes much harder to identify common material problems and demands—for example, the fight for labor rights or for a properly funded public health system. Voters no longer embrace such demands, these authors argue, because they no longer see themselves as part of a collective. Instead, they tend to value the identities assigned to them by neoliberal subjectivity—the role of the entrepreneur, for example. On this interpretation, the left’s possible error lies in clinging to outdated illusions. Moysés’s warning is highly relevant and resonates with arguments such as Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s “Apocalyptic Fascism and the Billionaires’ Bet.” Unlike a century ago, the far right no longer promises a radiant future. It concentrates instead on resentment—especially that of young men. “They belong to a generation that fears it may never own a home, but compensates with the pleasure it gets from constantly provoking progressives online. Convinced their future has been stolen, they share memes romanticizing historical authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. But Moysés seems to confuse this danger with inevitability. He fails to see that the left’s answer cannot be adaptation. On the contrary, it must strengthen the possibility of politics as collective action. Nor does he recognize that precisely such a reversal is already becoming possible in some of the most promising mobilizations of the twenty-first century: the election, at the end of 2025, of the young Muslim Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York, on a platform centered on the intensely material fight for an affordable city; the Left Party’s victory in Berlin two weeks ago, built around the demand to expropriate private real-estate corporations; and the very recent wave of demonstrations in Spain—including an occupation of Madrid’s Puerta del Sol—in which tens of thousands of young people mobilized by the Tenants’ Union have demanded limits on rents. By putting itself in the straitjacket of the “fiscal framework” in the first months of 2022, Lula’s third government adopted the second fatal accommodation of its term. Faced with conservative institutions and a country devastated by four years of Bolsonaro, increased public investment was the government’s remaining weapon for offering a more dignified life to the majority and forging an anti-conservative pact with them. The same state that disburses 1 trillion reais a year to enrich a small class of rentiers could instead spend money to extend the Family Health Strategy to every Brazilian, at a cost of 30 billion reais; provide full-day public schooling and childcare to all adolescents and children—and, especially, relief to their mothers; achieve universal sanitation while cleaning up polluted urban rivers; multiply metro systems; begin transforming the urban peripheries; and undertake many other urgently needed projects. In April 2023, an article in Outras Palavras warned that the fiscal framework could “shrink the Lula government and preserve the forces that condemn the country to inequality and regression.” A year later, another article showed that restraints on public spending were strangling policies vital to ordinary people and undermining the president’s popularity. In November 2024 came a reality check, in the form of the government’s humiliating defeat in the municipal elections. Even then, the fiscal lock was neither removed nor loosened. On the contrary: throughout the government’s four years, fiscal restraint remained central to its political narrative. The administration proudly proclaimed that it had “put the state’s accounts in order,” without grasping either how misleading that phrase was—given the payment of 1 trillion reais in interest—or how badly the message was hurting it politically. Lula finally woke up in September 2026. The increase in Bolsa Família benefits, after four years of being frozen; the announcement that anti-obesity drugs would be offered through Brazil’s public health system; and the ban on online betting showed that the state has the power to act decisively on behalf of the majority when those in government are willing to confront obstacles. The huge marches that closed the campaign in Fortaleza, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo on the eve of October 4 showed how such initiatives can mobilize activists and the broader public. But it was too late—and too little to change the outcome of the first round. History has not ended The possibility of a turnaround in the three weeks leading up to November 25 cannot be ruled out. It will not be simple or easy. Lula must not only make up a deficit of 2.2 million votes; he must also offset the movement of voters who backed other right-wing candidates in the first round, most of whom are likely to move toward Flávio Bolsonaro. Pulling that off will require a broad, grassroots effort to win over voters, potentially reinforced by new initiatives from Lula. The coming hours and days will be decisive. If Bolsonaro’s movement also wins the presidency, the result will create a high-risk situation for Brazilian sovereignty and democracy. The enormous challenges posed by such an outcome would require the left to reexamine, in depth and with a genuine willingness to engage in self-criticism, its political projects—or its lack of them—and its practices. But would that mean we are condemned to the long winter of far-right hegemony that some analyses are beginning to forecast? It is far too early to say, suggests a recent text by Álvaro García Linera, the thinker who served as vice president of Bolivia under Evo Morales. His central hypothesis is that this political current will prove short-lived. At a moment when the entire world is once again talking about sovereignty and protecting national economies, the far right offers a stale, recolonizing neoliberalism. Its submission to the United States is as blatant and pathetic as Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s overtures to Donald Trump. Its project amounts to something like every man for himself: greater inequality, capitalism without limits, devastation, and supremacism. Will it work? In the United States, just two years into his second term, Trump himself is reaching record levels of unpopularity and may be on the verge of losing Republican control of both the House and Senate in November. Every new beginning is difficult. Whatever the outcome of the second round, the defeats of October 4 show how profoundly the Brazilian left will have to rethink and rebuild. But just as it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of its mistakes, it would be equally foolish to conclude that rebuilding a political project is no longer possible. History has not ended. The times are moving faster than ever. Originally published in Portuguese by Outras Palavras. English translation by Eric Blanc; I’ve added the subtitles. More We can’t stop the far right at home or abroad without a revitalized labor movement, which is yet another reason why you should become a sustaining supporter of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) — one of US labor’s pivotal bright spots. Relatedly, Jacobin published a short piece of mine reflecting on a decade of Bernie Sanders inspiring a whole new generation of young worker organizers.
The Xbox Elite Controller (Series 3) specs might've leaked — here's what's new (and the main thing you'll want to know remains unanswered)
Although I was unable to verify the sources (as they've been removed), users suggest that this leak is most likely legit. The Xbox Elite Controller Series 3 is likely imminent.
Flint residents ask questions at Mayoral and Board of Education forum
Flint Mayoral and Board of Education candidates answered questions from the public ahead of the November election at Brennan Community Center.
Florida State Plays Inspired in Dominant Win Over Virginia
Florida State scored 38 unanswered points in a dominant victory over the Virginia Cavaliers, and Ashton Daniels and the Seminoles defense were a juggernaut on both sides of the ball as the Seminoles earned their third win of the season and evened their record in ACC play at 1-1.
Gasperini: “The match vs Verona the most exciting of all.”
Gian Piero Gasperini answered a barrage of questions from La Gazzetta dello Sport. The Roma coach looked back on some of his time with the Giallorossi, starting with the most emotional match: “I’d...
Todd McLellan Fires Back at Red Wings Doubters
Todd McLellan answered the Red Wings doubters hours before the season opener against the Rangers. #RedWings
Mars symposium sheds light on life on the red planet
Even the greats like musician David Bowie have asked: Is there life on Mars? In a symposium held earlier this month at William & Mary, Research Professor Joel Levine said we may have answered that question 50 years ago. “The Exploration of Mars & the Search for Life: Viking to Humans” symposium was held in […]
UT's $25 million health AI project has big ambitions and unanswered questions
Experts say only a few university health systems have launched such comprehensive plans around AI, with the potential to impact millions of patients, students and faculty.
Penn State football looks to rebound against Northwestern
(WHTM) – A loss to unranked Wisconsin has the Nittany Lions outside the AP Top 25 going into a short-week road game. The first loss of the Matt Campbell era came after the Badgers erased a 17-point Penn State lead and scored 14 unanswered points in the final four minutes of the Nittany Lions’ Homecoming […]
Washington scores three unanswered, knocks off Yankton
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) – Yankton made the trip to Sioux Falls on Thursday, and fell to Washington 3-1. The Bucks scored the first goal of the match early in the first half on a penalty kick from senior midfielder Antonio Guitron, as Yankton was looking to snap a four-match losing streak. Washington, however, answered […]
Victor Wembanyama slams players promoting sports betting weeks after LeBron James announces Polymarket deal
Victor Wembanyama made his stance on sports betting very clear. On Thursday, the Spurs superstar spoke to reporters at training camp and answered whether he’d ever sign a deal with...
Nebraska’s Dan Osborn responds to leaked audio commenting on Trump supporters
Osborn, an independent running for Senate, answered rapid-fire questions.
When “DEI” research is cut, what happens to community health?
“I’m just going to run to the grocery store!” How many times have we said this without thinking about it? For most of us, it's usually an easy walk or a short drive to get the cheese we forgot. In reality, though, 13% of the U.S. population (about 39 million people) live in “food deserts,” which means living more than a mile from a grocery store in urban areas and more than 10 miles in rural areas. This was the case for people in Pittsburgh’s Hill District, where a quick run to buy food wasn’t an option. In the 1930s, federal maps marked the Hill as "hazardous" for lending, a practice known as redlining that steered investment away from Black neighborhoods. Decades of disinvestment followed, and residents went about 30 years without a nearby grocery store. This made it hard to keep healthy eating habits and contributed to chronic disease. When a grocery store finally opened in the area in 2013, researchers saw the opportunity and launched the PHRESH study, which initially compared the health of participants from the Hill district to those in the Homewood district. Over time, the study expanded to other factors such as brain health and Alzheimer's risk. Residents like Roderick Blair overcame initial hesitation to share their health data, trusting it would benefit their neighborhood. Then, in August 2026, the NIH abruptly canceled the study’s grant, citing that it was “subjective” and fell outside their scientific scope—an effect of the administration’s interpretation of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Research like PHRESH can help determine what changes in a neighborhood actually improve health, so cutting it has left that question unanswered. Other canceled studies have examined health issues like maternal health, preterm birth rates, or sickle cell disease. Courts have reversed some of these grant cancellations, but not all of them. If we really want America to be healthier, research into why some communities get sicker than others is absolutely critical. The law that created the federal minority health research institute passed with bipartisan support in 2000. But these days, as evidenced by grant cancellations, the political shift in attitudes toward DEI means we often lose access to the health information we need to help all communities thrive. DEI vs. health equity vs. equality and the overlap (or lack thereof) The letters “DEI” evoke very different reactions depending on who you are in the U.S. DEI programs can address gender, disability, age, and other factors, but the fiercest debate centers on race. For some people, hearing DEI brings to mind policies that may have cost them a job or a college seat because they are white. Others see DEI as a matter of justice: a way to expand representation and opportunity for groups that have been historically marginalized. Both perspectives are rooted in lived experience, and both center on the same question: whether hiring and admissions practices are fair. Hiring and admission practices, though related, are not the same as health equity. Health equity is “the attainment of the highest level of health for all people.” It’s the recognition that some groups of people consistently experience worse health outcomes than others. For instance, black mothers die from pregnancy-related complications at three times the rate of white mothers, and rural Americans are more likely to die from issues such as heart disease and cancer. Equity is also often conflated with “equality,” which leads to misunderstanding of how to actually best support communities. Equality ignores the fact that we aren’t all starting life with the same resources or circumstances, whereas equity is about helping people get what they specifically need based on their situation so they have the chance to achieve the same outcome as anyone else. For example, if every household in Pittsburgh got a $30 grocery gift card, that would be equal. But during the decades the Hill District went without a grocery store, that card wouldn’t have helped much. Equity means making sure everyone can actually access a store in the first place. DEI policies can overlap with health equity in many ways. For example, they may help expand access to quality education and stable, well-paying jobs, which in turn can provide health insurance, safer housing, and improved finances—all of which can reduce health disparities. But to make that happen, we first need data to identify disparities in communities and to develop solutions that effectively address them. What we lose when the research stops Community data is important to health equity because: You can’t fix what you don’t see: Data show which communities are most affected by health factors such as infection, heart disease, and cancer. If we don’t know what is happening and where, then we can’t develop interventions to help. Poor health costs everyone: Chronic disease is expensive—both to the individual person and to the overall economy. Understanding what groups of people are most at risk allows us to develop interventions that can save everyone money. Disparities exist for many communities: Health equity includes disparities that exist due to a whole host of factors, such as family background, race and ethnicity, rural vs. suburban residence, gender and sexual orientation, veteran status, disability, and lower income. This means many Americans can benefit from research into differences in health outcomes and how to improve them. Trust is easy to lose: Some participants in the PHRESH study were initially vocal about their concerns about participating. But that trust was earned because the researchers kept their promises and centered their work on the community. When projects are canceled mid-cycle, researchers have no choice but to leave behind communities they had promised to help. This hurts trust in the long run. It’s also a very inefficient use of resources, and it will take significant time and effort to redo the work when the government realizes this work is important again. How should we talk about health equity? This is hard because the words “equity” and “DEI” are currently very politically charged. So whether you’re a public health professional, teacher, or friend, how we talk about this topic matters. The right framing can help people who might otherwise be skeptical see why health equity research is important and deserves funding. Here are some suggestions to help your conversations: Choose your words strategically: Who are you trying to reach with your message? Are they likely to be resistant to terms like “diversity” and “equity”? If so, find alternative words to use to still get the message across. It is frustrating to be in that position, but the goal of improving health is too important not to try to make inroads. Sometimes simply reframing can help the message reach those who need to hear it. Focus on the problem: The terms “health equity” and “DEI” are abstract. Make it more specific. For example, discuss differences in maternal death or ways to improve health outcomes in rural communities. These still have equity at their core but will likely be better understood by those you’re talking with. Focus on systems: Disparities exist, but if they are communicated poorly, people can mistakenly think the issue is the individual’s fault. Disparities are largely driven by failures of the system—such as lack of access to health care and a long legacy of racism. When discussing the disparities, frame them around these systemic issues to ensure blame isn’t placed on the individuals impacted. Tell stories: Personalize these policies by using stories from those impacted that connect to the data you’re trying to convey. This helps make the policies and outcomes more concrete and meaningful. Bottom line Some communities end up sicker than others. That’s just the facts. We can argue about the best way to do that research, but canceling it simply because it may be linked to DEI doesn’t make anyone healthier. It just leaves communities like the Hill district behind. And in the end, it causes us all to move backward in our efforts to improve health in this country. Love, EM Big thanks to MacKenzie Isaac & Legairre Radden, who reviewed this piece and generously shared their expertise and lived experience to help improve it. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. To discuss communication training on topics like health equity and storytelling, email Liz at liz@yle.health or learn more on our website. 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: Your Local Epidemiologist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Chicago Cubs news
On a day off for many players, Alex Bregman wanted to play and answered with two home runs in Game 162.
Ranking Member Markey: SBA Administrator Loeffler, Trump Administration are Refusing to Answer to America’s 36+ Million Small Businesses and Workers, Leaving Main Street Behind
Loeffler canceled her scheduled Sept. 30 appearance before the Senate Small Business Committee, has not appeared before SBC in more than a year (Washington, September 28) – Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today released the following statement after Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator Kelly Loeffler canceled her scheduled Wednesday appearance before the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. Administrator Loeffler has not appeared before the committee in more than a year and has consistently refused to provide substantial answers to committee members in person, in writing, or via requested briefings. In June, Ranking Member Markey led every Democratic member of the committee in calling on Administrator Loeffler to appear before the committee to answer for the Trump administration’s cruel attacks on American small businesses, entrepreneurs, and workers. The Democratic lawmakers still have not received a response from Administrator Loeffler. “It is unacceptable that Administrator Loeffler chose to cancel her appearance before the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. The Trump administration is once again ignoring the more than 36 million American small businesses, entrepreneurs, and workers who drive our economy and enrich our communities by refusing to answer questions about this administration’s reckless economic policies. It has been more than a year since Administrator Loeffler has appeared before our committee and answered questions from both Democrats and Republicans. Since then, the Trump administration’s attacks on Main Street have only worsened. “Small businesses are facing record high gas and diesel prices, skyrocketing healthcare costs, and never-ending uncertainty from Trump’s trade war with the world. Trump has terrorized Main Streets across the country with violent ICE raids, destroying families, communities, and local economies. Meanwhile, Administrator Loeffler and the Trump SBA have been in a Witness Protection Program, ignoring the Pain on Main Street that they have created. They have chosen to make drastic cuts to SBA funding and essential, bipartisan programs, including the closure of the SBA office in Springfield and removal of the SBA office from Boston; directly attacked immigrant small business owners and destroyed the promise of the American Dream; and proposed shortsighted small business size rules that would benefit billion-dollar businesses over actual small businesses. “It’s clear that Administrator Loeffler, President Trump, and their CEO billionaire buddies want to turn the Small Business Administration into the Big Business Administration, tear down our economy, and abandon Main Street. If that is indeed this administration’s goal, Administrator Loeffler must answer to the millions of small businesses, workers, and families in Massachusetts and across the country that this administration is leaving behind.” ###
Menopause is a major health milestone, yet health records barely track it
Capturing data about the timing and symptoms of menopause could help address many unanswered questions about this common yet ignored experience.
Around the Empire: Wild Card Series previews and predictions
All your Wild Card Series questions answered; Wells’ well-timed turnaround; JV calls it a career.
Some health questions answered, others arise for Dodgers with October looming
The Dodgers need a healthy Snell, even if he might not pitch until Game 3 of the NLDS.
Pioneer of China NewCo model sued in US over trade secret misuse, double-dealing
A legal feud unfolding in New York is putting a spotlight on the work of a business development veteran who is credited for pioneering one of biopharma’s hottest dealmaking mechanism: the China “NewCo” model. In a lawsuit originally filed in New York state court and recently moved to federal court, China’s Lepu Medical Technology has alleged that biopharma business development consultant Su Zhang, who was hired to help shop its GLP-1 weight-loss candidates to Western partners, engaged in corporate double-dealing and trade secret leaks. According to the complaint, while acting as Lepu’s primary dealmaking liaison for a group of obesity and metabolic disease drug candidates, Zhang was secretly double-dipping as the acting chief business officer for a direct competitor, BrightGene Pharmaceutical. “She never adequately disclosed the role, never sought Lepu’s consent, and never proposed any safeguard,” Lepu alleged in its complaint, which was filed in July after Zhang’s consulting firm, CoDevCo, sought certain transaction-based success fees from its angry customer through an arbitration process in Singapore. Lepu, the parent company of Lepu Biopharma, has asked Zhang to pay back its $500,000 retainer and disgorge all benefits she received during the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, plus other damages and relief. The company has also requested the court grant injunctions to protect Lepu’s trade secrets. The ill-fated partnership officially kicked off in December 2024, when Lepu tapped CoDevCo as its “exclusive business development mechanism” to identify collaborators for the company’s drug candidates. According to Lepu’s complaint, Zhang personally negotiated and signed the agreement as managing director for CoDevCo, which used her home address. Before the Lepu deal, Zhang made a name following a short stint as the global head of business development for Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. It was during her tenure that Hengrui signed a landmark deal granting exclusive rights for a portfolio of GLP-1 assets to Hercules, which was at that time newly established by a group of private equity and venture capital firms. In addition to the regular upfront and milestone payments, Hengrui also gained an equity stake in Hercules, which later became Kailera Therapeutics. The Hengrui-Hercules deal opened a new paradigm, where a Chinese biopharma company spins off certain early-stage assets to investors for further development through the creation of a new company abroad. The “NewCo” model quickly came into vogue as it allows Western investors to access high-potential assets originating from China at an early stage while giving the Chinese licensors an opportunity to reap long-term benefits through equity stakes in the new firms. The NewCo model proved its value when Kailera staged a record-breaking $625 million IPO on Nasdaq this April, merely two years into the Hengrui deal. Related Kailera CEO 'knew we were in a good spot' before obesity biotech's record-breaking $625M IPO On her LinkedIn page, Zhang described her work at Hengrui as “[b]uilding team and capability from the ground up,” forming NewCo and major pharma partnerships worth billions of dollars. Lepu clearly wanted that kind of track record to help boost its own cardiometabolic portfolio, which includes a range of assets for obesity, Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and muscle preservation during weight loss treatment. “Lepu’s pipeline is very valuable, but only if Lepu could secure the right international partner to expand into the overseas market during the available commercial window,” the company argued in its complaint. The Chinese biotech said it had little knowledge of U.S. laws, customs or business practices in the business development field, and therefore “needed to rely entirely” on the expertise of Zhang and her team as the firm’s first engagement of a U.S.-based BD consultant. “Zhang’s dominating influence on the business development strategy is further evidenced by the fact that she personally controlled the business-development communications on behalf of Lepu with potential partners,” Lepu said in its complaint. After entering the deal, Zhang introduced Lepu to her four associates. According to Lepu’s version of events, all of them were allegedly employed at different time points to perform similar jobs at other Chinese companies that Lepu described as its competitors, while having access to Lepu’s confidential information. As such, Lepu described Zhang’s team as “a roster of individuals whose primary professional loyalty, by virtue of their concurrent full-time employment, ran to Lepu’s competitors.” As well as the specific examples set out in the case, a look at Lepu’s deals over the period suggests Zhang may have been involved in at least one transaction. During their partnership, Lepu, through its subsidiary Shanghai Minwei Biotechnology, also out-licensed its GLP-1/GIP/FGF21 agonist MWN105 to a NewCo called Sidera Bio in the fall of 2025. The deal included an upfront and near-term payment of $35 million, up to $1.01 billion in milestones, and a 9.99% stake in the Danish startup. It seems likely that Zhang facilitated the Minwei deal given that Lepu is on record as having used CoDevCo as its “exclusive business development mechanism.” The big shock for Lepu came in the form of a news article on June 25, 2025. The article, reporting on phase 2 data for BrightGene’s GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist BGM0504, identified Zhang as acting chief business officer of the Lepu rival. Blindsided by her association with BrightGene, Lepu confronted Zhang in July 2025. “Lepu was given assurances that there was nothing to be concerned about and told that Zhang would explain the matter to Lepu,” Lepu alleged in its complaint. “Zhang never did.” Lepu claimed that Zhang had the motive and opportunity to steer potential prospective partners toward BrightGene or other competitors. Later, in February 2026, one of Zhang’s associates joined BrightGene as the vice president for global business development, according to the complaint. Around the same time, Lepu sent written demand letters asking Zhang to account for her BrightGene role, identify what confidential data were shared with the rival firm, and provide any conflict-of-interest or firewall policies during the engagement. According to Lepu, neither CoDevCo nor Zhang answered the questions in their responses. Related Novo vs. KBP: How a $1.3B deal turned into a fraud accusation and an international legal fight In a motion to dismiss filed with the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 4, Zhang’s legal team argued that Lepu’s agreement was signed with CoDevCo, and that an employee of the contractor does not owe fiduciary duties to the client. In its complaint, Lepu said: “That CoDevCo was the contracting entity does not insulate Zhang from personal liability for duties she personally undertook and personally breached.” Taking the argument one step further, the defending party argued that the consulting agreement “does not create a fiduciary relationship even between CoDevCo and Lepu; instead, it identifies CoDevCo as an independent contractor retained to market Lepu’s business to potential western partners.” Although CoDevCo was Lepu’s exclusive business-development contractor, there were no terms stipulating that the consulting firm should serve only Lepu, Zhang’s lawyer noted. As to Lepu’s claims that Zhang misappropriated trade secrets, the defendant argued that Lepu authorized the use of the information so Zhang’s team could perform their service per the agreement. In a rebuttal filed on Sept. 11, Lepu’s lawyer set out why they believe the Chinese biotech satisfied New York law’s misappropriation definition by alleging that the defendant used a trade secret “in breach of a duty or through improper means.” As an alternative to dismissing the suit, the defendant suggested the action should be stayed pending outcomes from the arbitration of a separate case in Singapore. While NewCo pioneer Zhang is defending her business arrangements, momentum behind the NewCo trend has continued unabated into 2026. Through August, Chinese biotech assets have spurred 15 NewCo deals this year, according to local trade publication PharmaDJ.
Falcons Shock Packers In Primetime!
The Atlanta Falcons stunned the Green Bay Packers on Thursday night, rolling to a 35-14 victory at Lambeau Field and handing Green Bay its second straight loss. The Packers came out quickly, with Jordan Love connecting with Christian Watson for an early touchdown. Atlanta answered through Bijan Robinson, who broke loose for a huge 55-yard…
Alaska governor candidates discuss education, PFD and energy
Four Alaska governor candidates answered questions from community members and Rotarians about education, the Permanent Fund Dividend and energy. The candidates also discussed natural gas production in Cook Inlet ahead
What CDC's new teen health survey shows, and what it skips
Teen suicide risk hit a 10-year low in 2025. Guns, sexual violence, and self-harm. Where are the 2025 data on transgender teens? Missing data changes public health policy. Teen suicide risk hit a 10-year low in 2025. CDC asked more than 10,000 high school students over 100 questions in spring 2025. Yesterday, it published a report covering a fraction of them. The report focsed on five areas: diet, physical activity, sleep, digital behaviors, and mental health, reflecting the priorities of the Make America Healthy Again movement. There was good news. Fewer teens seriously considered suicide in 2025 than in any survey year since 2015: 14%, down from 20% in 2023. Sadness fell. Underlying Conditions is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Sports participation, which dipped to 49% in 2021, is back to its 2015 level of 58%. Daily PE fell from 27% to 20% in two years, while fewer students eat breakfast daily than a decade ago. Guns, sexual violence, and self-harm. The questionnaire is public, and it goes well beyond those five areas. Students answered questions about sexual violence, self-harm, and whether they got help when they felt sad or anxious. They said how quickly they could get a loaded gun. They reported whether food ran out at home and whether they felt close to people at school. There were questions about sexual identity, including whether they were transgender. The report did not publish any of the answers students gave to those questions. CDC posts the raw survey data online, so anyone can see what the report left out. The report doesn’t cover the health of sexual minority students. Among students who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning, or another non-straight identity, persistent sadness fell from 66% to 57% between 2023 and 2025. Serious thoughts of suicide fell from 41% to 30%. Those drops were bigger than the ones among straight students, although the gap remains wide: 28% of straight students reported persistent sadness, about half the rate of LGBQ+ students. About 1 in 7 girls reported sexual violence in the past year. One in 6 students hurt themselves on purpose. Among students who needed help for sadness or anxiety, half rarely or never got it. And among students who had seriously considered suicide, 43% said they could get a loaded gun without an adult’s permission. One protective factor rose sharply. In 2023, 55% of students said they felt close to people at their school; in 2025, 63% did. CDC’s earlier research ties that kind of connection to better mental health. Where are the 2025 data on transgender teens? In 2023, CDC's national survey asked high school students, for the first time, whether they were transgender. Their answers are the only nationally representative data on transgender teens, and their mental health is by far the worst of any demographic. That year, 71% of transgender students reported persistent sadness, 54% seriously considered suicide, and 26% attempted it, compared with 38%, 18%, and 8% of cisgender students. But we don’t have 2025 data. The timing matters because students took the survey in spring 2025, as federal policy toward transgender youth shifted. On January 28th, an executive order directed agencies to end federal support for gender-affirming care for people under 19, and several hospitals paused that care within days. In February, the CDC said it would no longer process transgender identity data. Later in 2025, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and HHS ended the 988 Lifeline’s dedicated line for LGBTQ+ youth. Researchers disagree about how much state policy shapes trans teens’ mental health. A 2024 Trevor Project study estimated that anti-trans laws increased suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth. Critics dispute its methods and its estimates. The 2025 survey could have added national evidence to that fight. CDC collected the data but hasn’t publicly released it. Missing data changes public health policy. Surveillance works as a feedback loop. It can show officials whether their policies help or hurt. The CDC didn’t provide data on the students most exposed to transgender policy shifts. The report kept measures that frame health as personal choice, like fruit, breakfast, and sports. It left out measures that track policy, like gun access, mental healthcare, food at home, and school climate, all of which respond to what legislators and agencies decide. HHS did not respond to questions that I sent on September 21st.
Yankees' Trent Grisham Question Has Already Been Answered
The New York Yankees should already know what to do with Trent Grisham.
Auburn Fought Back Against Florida. Then Everything Fell Apart
Auburn football's 44-39 loss to Florida turned on a disastrous third quarter as the Gators scored 17 unanswered points after a 17-17 tie. Alex Golesh's Tigers showed fight behind Byrum Brown, but offensive struggles and defensive breakdowns proved costly in their SEC opener.
Broncos Rally to Beat Jaguars in Wild Comeback
The Denver Broncos came roaring back Sunday afternoon, overcoming a 13-3 deficit to defeat the Jacksonville Jaguars 20-13 at Empower Field at Mile High. After a disappointing season-opening loss to the Kansas City Chiefs, Denver needed a response. It got exactly that, scoring 17 unanswered points in the second half to hand Jacksonville its first…
Stukenholtz: Huskers Answered Questions in Workmanlike Non-Con Slate
With Big Ten play on the horizon, we did actually learn some important details about this team in their blowout wins.
Saracens take command to overrun Tigers
By BEN JAYCOCK LAST season’s double winners Saracens made a devastating opening statement of intent in the PWR Cup with a 66-0 demolition of Leicester Tigers yesterday, running in 10 unanswered tries. Charlotte Wright-Haley opened the scoring for the holders after three minutes before Joia Bennett, Daisy Fitzgerald and Emma Hardy crossed to establish a […] The post Saracens take command to overrun Tigers appeared first on The Rugby Paper .
Questions Remain After Ohio State Thrashes Kent State
Ohio State demolished Kent State, 59-3. Despite that, there are a few questions that remain which need answered as Big Ten play looms.
Science Vs on the 49ers Substation: Anatomy of a Hatchet Job
In August, Pablo Torre Finds Out and Science Vs released an episode about my theory that electromagnetic fields from the electrical substation beside the 49ers facility may be contributing to the team’s run of soft-tissue injuries. As the originator of the theory, I was also a subject of the episode. I sat was interviewed by Wendy Zukerman and Rose Rimler of Sciene Vs. I sent them research, connected them with scientists, and spent hours digging through the City of Santa Clara’s and Silicon Valley Power’s records to help clarify critical details. Both Wendy and Rose came off as affable and professional, showing curiosity during the interviews, with Wendy going out of her way to question the “conspiracy theory” framing itself. Then they titled the episode We Solve the 49ers Viral Conspiracy Theory. I was familiar enough with their catalog that I never expected them to agree with my theory, but I did expect them to give it a fair hearing and to deliver their findings honestly. On both counts they came up short. They were not directly dishonest in anything they said, but rather in what they left out, in how what remained was cut, and in the picture painted by those two things in combination. They asked me to recorded the interview on my phone for better audio quality, and I held on to my copy for reference later. That turned out to be a fortuitous decision. Here is the raw audio of my first interview, unedited*. Only my side was recorded, so their questions aren’t on it, but you can generally infer them from the answers, and every claim I make below about what I said can be checked against my statements in this clip. (Note: Wendy had connection trouble at the beginning of the interview and was cutting in and out, which accounts for the false starts.) 0:00 -1:19:13 Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. Science Vs is a fun show. It is pitched at roughly a high-school understanding of science, for an audience that is skeptical, Snopes-oriented, and worried about misinformation. Take a claim circulating online, interview a supporter of the claim, interview consensus scientists, and then tell people which side of the line it lands on. I have listened to their episodes on raw milk, seed oils, 5G and other contested issues in the wellness space. I have problems with all of them, but each at least made an honest attempt to represent the actual range of scientific opinion by talking to credentialed scientists with differing perspectives. Dissenting researchers were heard from, answered, and often given a chance to respond. This episode did not do that. This article is not a relitigation of the science. I have written extensively about that already. This post is for the record. It is simply an accounting of what was wrong with their episode. Contents Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? — the clearest single example of getting something objectively wrong For the record — a high-level overview of all of the problems with their investigation Draw your own conclusions — why they had to make this episode at all What they left out about childhood leukemia — the exposure threshold, and playing games with statistics to minimize sick children What they left out about the mechanism — the body of literature they refused to cover, and evidence for the mechanism used against it The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air — four credential scientists who support myhe theory, recorded and cut, or not even called How they misrepresented me and my case — an answer severed from its question, and three telling edits How you would actually study the injuries — it doesn’t actually matter which team is the most injured, overall The theory: magnetic fields, oxidative stress, and collagen Since the episode never states my theory, here it is below. Those who are familiar with my work can skip this section. Electrical equipment produces magnetic fields, and those fields induce faint electrical currents in anything that passes through them, including people. My argument goes further than induced current. Mitochondria — the structures that generate a cell’s energy — run on continuous flows of electrons and protons, and those flows carry faint electromagnetic fields of their own. Maxwell’s principle of superposition shows that when two fields share the same space, they add together. An external field does not need to be strong to alter an internal field, it only needs to be present. The electron transport chain inside the mitochondria leaks a small fraction of its electrons by design, and those become reactive oxygen species — free radicals, which healthy cells use as signals. External magnetic fields cause the rate of leakage to change, increasing free radicals. When free radicals accumulate faster than the cell’s antioxidant systems can clear them, the result is oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is a recognized driver of chronic illness, including cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, diabetes and cancer, and it is in every medical school curriculum. One of its ordinary effects in connective tissue is that it switches on matrix metalloproteinases — MMPs, the enzymes that break collagen apart — while suppressing new collagen synthesis. Tendons are made of collagen. An athlete loading his soft tissue heavily six days a week is already creating oxidative stress in the tendons, so the addition of magnetic field exposure compounds the damage and inhibits repair, making him more susceptible to injury when enormous force lands on a tendon in a fraction of a second. That is the theory. We know that EMF causes oxidative stress, and we know that oxidative stress degrades collagen. The only thing missing is a study showing that direct connection. I have never claimed certainty that the substation is contributing to the elevated injury rate. I do believe it is likely, and I believe it warrants caution, and that a revenue machine like a major NFL team can easily afford to remove the exposure out of precaution. Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? Here is the clearest single instance of the problem with this episode. It requires no knowledge of electromagnetic fields at all. This story first came to me through Jon Feliciano, a former 49er, in an interview on Willard & Dibs on 95.7 The Game. Asked about why the 49ers are always injured, he said players used to joke that it was the power plant behind the practice fields. Wendy Zukerman corrects him on air. “It’s important to say that it’s not a power plant near the 49ers site.” Torre then asks her to explain the difference between a substation and a power plant. Her answer: a power plant generates electricity and transmits it to a substation, which converts the voltage into something your house can use and sends it on to your home or your business. There are two problems with that. The first is that there is a power plant on that site. The Gianera Generating Station is a natural-gas-fired peaker plant owned by Silicon Valley Power, and it has been there since 1986. I have published aerial photographs of the location from 1987 in which the gas plant is the only thing standing, before the practice facility was even there. I even mentioned the gas plant in my first interview. (Feliciano has since gone on record about this issue, and it is clear he had the substation in mind rather than the gas plant.) The second is that her definition describes a distribution substation, and the facility beside the 49ers is not that. It is the Northern Receiving Station, which takes in bulk power from outside the city’s grid and delivers it to distribution substations. Silicon Valley Power’s own map distinguishes receiving stations from substations, and Rose Rimler even reads the label out loud in the episode when she walks through that map on air. A few minutes before the map segment, Zukerman tells Torre: “like I said, we fact check everything.” Well, maybe not everything. I made a mistake On the morning of July 6th, at 10:20, I sent Rose and Wendy two studies. During the interview I had been asked which human studies show oxidative stress from electromagnetic fields, and I had not been able to name one on the spot. Rose emailed asking for the studies, I quickly searched for a couple, and I wrote that I thought these were the most relevant from that search. Unfortunately, I was busy and did not read either one closely at first. I picked them because they were topically relevant — one on substation workers, one on power plant workers. Neither were great studies, and their problems go past the ones raised in the episode. That was careless on my part. There is context that did not make the episode, though. Before that email I had been on a Zoom call with Rose talking about EMF and oxidative stress, and I pointed her to Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington, who has spent years aggregating the literature on this question. His tallies show that roughly 90% of studies since the late 1990s find oxidative effects from electromagnetic field exposure — hundreds of studies, systematically counted. Rose told me she was already aware of his work. So when she asked for studies, I understood her to have the aggregate view already and that she would report anything within that context. Not reading those two carefully was still a mistake, but the larger mistake was assuming the episode would be based on a thorough review of the actual body of literature, rather than on whatever I happened to send that morning. The second email At 1:49 that same afternoon — three hours and twenty-nine minutes after the first — I sent them a second email that I had been preparing for a while. It was a structured document in six numbered sections, written in response to a request they had made two weeks earlier, laying out my entire argument with citations attached to every link in the chain. The episode aired on August 13th, five weeks later, and not a single item from the second email is in it. Here is how it opens: The full email is included at the bottom of this post in Appendix B. Nearly 1,500 words in total. It contains two named mechanisms with the physics behind them. Occupational studies in humans. The literature on oxidative stress and collagen. A section addressing the strongest counter-evidence against my own theory, which I raised myself. And a closing section stating plainly what the theory cannot yet show. My entire argument, in writing, with detailed citations for every claim, provided to them five weeks before broadcast, and none of it made it into the episode. That is the single largest omission, but it is not an isolated one. The whole episode is riddled with similar problems, and the conclusion they came to is not merely a difference of opinion about the scientific evidence. Through omission and through strategic editing, Science Vs misinformed its audience — about what the evidence shows, about what I argued, and about who they spoke to. That is a notable outcome for a show whose stated purpose is correcting misinformation. For the record I am not going to tell you that Science Vs set out to discredit me, or that they had come to their conclusion before they reported the story, or that they used misleading editing to make me look like a man retreating from his own theory. I cannot know what was in anyone’s head, and I am not going to pretend otherwise, either. What I can tell you is what is on the record. They asked me for evidence and aired the weakest thing I sent. They interviewed three scientists who supported my theory and aired none of them. They discussed childhood leukemia without ever saying the exposure level at which it appears. And they took an answer I gave weeks before Ken Karipidis, the one EMF scientist who was put on air, was interviewed, and placed it directly after his critique, where it comes off as a major concession. A friend of mine who has worked as a journalist for thirty years read that last one and called it sleazy. I agree with her. Those are just the four issues that are impossible to defend as pure editorial decision, but they are not the only issues. The most glaring issues stem from what they left out: The exposure level at which the childhood leukemia association actually appears — three to four milligauss, a number the episode never states despite it being much lower than what I measured. The mechanism itself: The episode gets as far as “oxidative stress could weaken collagen,” which leaves it sounding like speculation, rather than a known pathway. The second email, and all the studies in it. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill, whose work my proposed mechanism rests on, whose contact details I supplied, and who was never called. Dr. Beatrice Golomb at UC San Diego, who runs a research group on oxidative stress and mitochondrial function and has specific expdertice in collagen, interviewed and not aired. Dr. David Carpenter at Albany, the most prominent academic voice on the harm from magnetic field exposure, interviewed and not aired. Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley, interviewed and not even credited. The specific, testable condition I put in writing that would make me abandon the theory. My own unprompted statement of the theory’s evidentiary gap. My caveats about my own measurements. My ranking of EMF as one factor among several rather than the only one. The new equipment installed at those facilities between 2010 and 2014, and the sharp rise in system load from 2013 onward. But that is not all. What they kept, they selectively edited to serve a narrative that was not served by the raw transcripts of the interviews. A description of thousands of commercial routers in a workplace, reduced to the Wi-Fi in your house. My own acknowledgment, multiple times, that "I'm not a scientist" clipped in an episode that spends considerable energy pointing out that I am not a scientist. And a qualification I volunteered about my own measurements, cut from my answer and delivered later by their EMF expert as a correction. Together their edit produce a portrait of a wellness guy with Wi-Fi phobia and two bad studies, backing away from his theory the moment a “real” scientist looked at it. A practice facility where nothing changed because no new substation was built. Injuries written off as random because the 49ers were not quite the single most injured team in the league over the period in question. That portrait is false even though almost no individual statement made in the episode is. Draw your own conclusions At the top of the episode, Pablo Torre says his show had been flooded with requests to investigate the substation — that it was the thing they were asked to look into over and over again. Neither show went hunting for this story. It arrived from their own audience, in volume, and it could not be waved off. A thread I posted on X reached twenty-two million people. A guy with a gaussmeter and a brand-new Substack obligated a Pultizer prize winning program to spend an hour on a question about player health, that is considered fringe enough that most media operations won’t touch it. Pablo Torre Finds Out could not ignore it. So Science Vs came in and ran a “debunking” operation instead of an investigation. Everything below is what had to be left on the cutting room floor to deliver the “debunking”. They could not ignore it. So they tried debunked it instead. The demand was strong enough to force an episode, and since the episodes release the 49ers have sustained more injuries, including season ending ones, and interest has only grown. Demand from fans and playets is strong enough to force a better investigation from someone else. An omission is not a lie until you find out what was omitted. What follows is the detailed record so you can see the full picture. Draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine. I am going to keep publishing. A note about Pablo Torre Finds Out After the episode aired I posted publicly, calling out Pablo Torre Finds Out for concerns I had about the integrity of their investigation, and about an interview directly with Pablo Torre which had been offered but never happened. I have since spoken with a producer at PTFO. The offer had rested on a misunderstanding about where things stood between us, and it fell away as the Science Vs part of the production widened past the science. He apologized for the miscommunication and I accepted. The producer also confirmed to me that they did essentially hand off the entire investigation to Science Vs for narrative purposes — so Pablo would be genuinely curious or potentially surprised by their findings — while still taking responsibility for what went out under their name. I appreciated the candor and the accountability, and I am comfortable with where we left things. So this post is not about PTFO. My disagreement is with Science Vs. What they left out about childhood leukemia Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They gave no number at all. 1. They built an EMF ruler, then discussed childhood cancer without it. The sequence on air went like this: First I measured almost 9 mG, then I measured up to 50 milligauss. Torre reacts with concern — “that sounds high.” Cut to Karipidis: the public limit is 2,000 milligauss. Torre reacts again — “What happens at 2,000?” Karipidis explains that nothing happens at 2,000, that safety factors are built in. Then: at more than 50,000 milligauss you get flickers of light in the retina, and higher still, nerve stimulation. The listener now has a ruler (their ruler) to measure these numbers with. Fifty is nothing by their ruler. Then the episode turns to childhood leukemia and states, accurately, that there is a real association — but tellingly, they never give the exposure level at which that association appears. Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They conveniently left that out. The pooled analyses that produced the World Health Organization’s carcinogen classification found roughly a doubling of childhood leukemia risk above three to four milligauss. That is the number that belongs in that segment, and it is more than ten times below the reading that had just been dismissed as trivial. I gave them that number myself, on tape, in the interview. Describing my own threshold, I said my comfort level for long-term chronic exposure is three to four milligauss, but preferably one. 2. Six children in thirteen million. The episode reports that these fields might explain one to four percent of childhood leukemias, then reframes it as a German estimate of perhaps six cases among thirteen million children. Torre, to his credit, is uncomfortable. What never gets explained is why that number is small. Almost no children lives above three milligauss in Europe. Fewer than two children in a hundred, in the Italian data. So even if the risk to those children doubles, the number of additional cases across an entire country stays small — not because the hazard is small, but because hardly anyone is exposed to it. Count the whole population and the few who are exposed disappear. And the reason hardly anyone is exposed is that siting rules keep housing away from transmission lines. In Europe, at least. The Dutch government has a standing precautionary policy against building new homes in any zone where the annual average magnetic field exceeds 4 milligauss — the same number the episode never mentioned. Denmark and Norway treat 4 milligauss as the level that triggers a look at mitigation. That is five hundred times below the ICNIRP figure quoted on air. The United States has no federal equivalent. That is evidence of infrastructure siting policy working. It is not evidence that there is no hazard. It is evidence that we already act as though there is one. If you listen to the raw audio you will hear that my proposed solution is EMF exposure is to build better infrastructure. What they left out about the mechanism 3. They accused me of cherry-picking, and then cherry-picked themselves. On air, Zukerman tells Torre that people who worry about electromagnetic fields dismiss the studies showing null results and collect the ones showing harm, and that this is why you have to be careful not to cherry-pick. They had two papers I had rattled off in a hurry, and a second email containing a carefully chosen set. They ran the two weakest, graded them on air, and presented the result as the state of the evidence for not only my theory, but the whole question of oxidative stress from magnetic fields. That is cherry-picking from my emails. The bigger picture is what they did with the literature as a whole. Zukerman acknowledges it exists, dismisses it, and disposes of it in a single stroke. You can go online right now, she tells Torre, and find scores of studies showing these fields increase oxidative stress. The issue, she says, is that they are not studies in people. Many of them are in people. The occupational studies in my second email are in people. That email had been in her inbox for five weeks. She waved off the literature on a factual claim that the documents in her possession contradict. (I have written separately about the evidentiary standard at work here). The effect was that they essentially baited me: ask the subject to supply the evidence, take the weakest thing he sends, and let that stand as a proxy for the whole argument. Wendy has been doing this show for ten years and clearly knows how to extract what she needs for her desired narrative. 4. They presented the collagen-improvement research as a gotcha, but I had already addressed it. The episode treats the existence of studies showing that EMF can improve collagen as a surprise that undercuts me, but I had pre-emptively addressed that five weeks earlier in the email they ignored. Those studies use measured, high-intensity pulsed dosing. The mechanism by which they work is oxidative signalling. The cell reads a controlled rise in reactive oxygen species as a warning, upregulates its antioxidant defenses, mounts a repair response, and the therapy stops before the system is overwhelmed. The key point is that it induces an oxidative response, which means those studies are actually evidence for my proposed mechanism, not against it. A field that produces a therapeutic effect cannot be biologically inert (which is the implication when they say “Nothing happens at 2,000 milligauss). Chronic ambient exposure is the same pathway with no off switch, and it is most consequential during the evening and while sleeping, when the body is in repair mode and the exposure does not stop. Section 5 of my email is titled What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis. I raised the counter-evidence myself, explained why I did not think it refuted the theory, and wrote that I was disappointed the question had not come up in the interview. That is worth holding against the cherry-picking charge in the item above: the studies they presented as inconvenient for me were studies I had gone out of my way to put in front of them. 5. Section 1 of my email stated a critical argument that was never put to the expert directly responsible for it. My email says the exposure limits exist to prevent acute effects and do not address chronic exposure at all, and that my dispute is with the entire framework. Zukerman gestures at this once. After Karipidis gives the 2,000 milligauss figure, she tells Torre that I would object because those levels do not capture “more subtle effects.” That is not my argument, and “subtle” is doing a lot of work here. My argument is that the limits are built to prevent acute effects — nerves firing, muscles twitching, etc — and were not designed to address chronic exposure at all. In fact, ICNIRP’s own documents state as much themselves. Mine is a structural objection to what the standard measures, reduced as a concern about subtlety, it becomes a matter of degree, rather than a categorical difference. They interviewed Ken Karipidis, vice chair of ICNIRP — the body that writes those limits. He was asked what the limit is, but he was never asked how it applies to chronic exposure. The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air 6. They interviewed four officials of the standards body. The episode credits roughly a dozen researchers. Four of them are associated with ICNIRP. Ken Karipidis is the vice chair. Rodney Croft chaired ICNIRP from 2020 to 2024 and led the development of its current guidelines. Dan Baaken is ICNIRP’s scientific secretary. Frank de Vocht sits on the Main Commission. One of them speaks in the episode. Their institution’s position is more than adequately represented — the 2,000 milligauss figure, the safety factors, the assurance that nothing happens below the line. 7. The four who were left out. Dr. Beatrice Golomb is Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego — a physics undergraduate degree, a PhD in biology, an MD. She directs a research group whose stated focus is the relationship between oxidative stress, mitochondrial function and health. That is the mechanism the episode spent its first half dismissing. Her published work includes the fluoroquinolone case series behind the FDA’s black box warning on an antibiotic class that ruptures tendons, where the accepted mechanism is oxidative stress and mitochondrial toxicity — the back half of my chain, already on a drug label. She is in the credits. She is not in the episode. She has told me she finds my theory biologically plausible, and that she has a recording of her interview. Dr. David Carpenter directed the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany for decades and is the most prominent academic voice arguing these fields cause harm. Childhood leukemia is the reason these fields carry a WHO classification at all, and Carpenter is the person you call if you want that case made by someone who has spent a career on it. He is in the credits. He is not in the episode. He has told me that when he was interviewed they could not have been less interested in what he had to say. Dr. Joel Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. He told me directly that they interviewed him and that he thought it went well. He does not appear in the episode, and unlike Golomb and Carpenter, he does not even appear in the credits. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill is the researcher whose work provides the foundation for the oxidative stress mechanism my theory rests on. I gave Rose his email address and phone number. He was never interviewed. They never even called him. 8. “He’s not a scientist.” The episode leans hard on the fact that I am not a credentialed scientist. Zukerman says it. Torre repeats it. “At all.” Having built a segment on that, they then left out the physicist-biologist-physician, the professor of public health, the director of a university environmental health institute, and the McGill researcher whose work the primary mechanism comes from. They spent the episode telling their audience I am not a scientist, and then kept four actual scientists who support the theory off because their argument does not survive otherwise. How they misrepresented me and my case 9. They played my words as a response to an interview I had never heard. Near the end of the hour, Zukerman says she went to me and told me the evidence was lacking. Then she plays me saying I am not wedded to it being an EMF, that I have staked my reputation on it needing more study, and that I am not certain of anything. That segment was placed immediately after Karipidis had finished taking the cherry-picked papers apart. It plays as a man folding under expert scrutiny. Commenters have used it against me since, but it is incorrect. Here is the sequence as it happened. I was interviewed. Karipidis was interviewed weeks later. I was never told what he said, or even who he was. I was never asked to respond to it. I did not know his name until the episode aired. That is not a simple editing decision. That is a quote from one interview, moved to follow a critique from a different interview it was not a response to, so that it would land as a concession. A friend of mine who has spent thirty years as a journalist read that sequence and called it sleazy. She is right. The full passage is reproduced in Appendix A, and it is worth reading. What airs is the preamble. Four paragraphs later I say “to directly answer your question” — and that answer, about what would change my mind if the team relocated, is not in the episode. Neither is the sentence two paragraphs on, where I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. I will say the underlying point again, though, because I meant it and I still do. I am not wedded to my theory that magnetic fields from the substation are contributing to the 49ers injuries. I could be wrong. What I am wedded to is the process of scientific inquiry, and the fact that we should be cautious around these exposures and we need more independently funded studies. 10. Three telling edits. They cut “I’m not a scientist” mid-sentence. What I said: “...and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS...” What aired: “...and that I am not certain of anything. I’m not.” The clip ends on the first two words of the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist, in an episode that spends considerable energy establishing that I am not a scientist. The full sequence is in Appendix A. They cut my own description of my work. Asked what I do, I said I run a wellness business, that I am focused on writing software to help people navigate environmental stressors, that environmental health is my focus, and that I also do independent journalism and research. What aired is the wellness business and the environmental health, with the software and the journalism removed from my own answer. The software engineering does come up later — narrated by them, as a hacker who grew up to write firmware — but my current work, in my own words, arrives as “wellness guy.” Thousands of commercial routers became home Wi-Fi. What I described: working at a wireless networking company surrounded by thousands of Wi-Fi routers, and a stress-induced health collapse afterward that working in that environment contributed to. What aired: Wi-Fi, the kind you have at home — reinforced by a clip of Christian McCaffrey talking about turning his router off at night. Three cuts, and every one of them makes me seem less credible. That is not a coincidence. 11. I gave them my own caveats and the test that would disprove me. In the first email I wrote that a well-designed chronic, ambient-level exposure study in tendon showing no collagen degradation, run over many months, would undercut my confidence in the theory. That is a specific, testable condition, stated in advance and in writing. There was a second interview, weeks later, which was not used in the episode, but in that I asked again for the falsification criterion to be included. What the episode presents instead is a man saying “we need more study,” which reads as a hedge, an open-ended request for the benefit of the doubt. It is the opposite of a hedge. Section 6 of my second email says, unprompted, that as far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human in vivo or in human tendon in a lab. I wrote that because it is true and because it is the first thing anyone should check. Under their standard it becomes the hinge of the entire first half, framed as something they had to surface without my cooperation. I had handed it to them five weeks earlier. And in the interview I said that my 25 to 50 milligauss readings were taken at knee level, and that these fields attenuate quickly, so by the time it reaches your head it is not that high anymore. That did not air either. The qualification arrives later, from Karipidis, as a correction. How you would actually study the injuries 12. They measured the wrong thing. The episode spends its final act on whether the 49ers are the most injured team in the NFL, finds no clean ranking, and lands on “injuries are random”. That is the wrong test. You would define the exposure — measured field levels at the facility — and the outcome narrowly: soft-tissue injuries, not a single MSK injury count that a broken finger and a ruptured Achilles both land in. Then you would compare the 49ers to themselves before and after the exposure changed, and compare that change against every other team over the same window. That controls for league-wide shifts in rules, turf and training load. It is a difference-in-differences design, and it is standard. I sent them that argument on July 28th, in writing, along with the fact that in eleven of the past twelve seasons the 49ers had finished top ten in Adjusted Games Lost. And by the episode’s own reporting, the 49ers are second in games lost to injury over the past decade, with FTN’s Aaron Schatz confirming that once you adjust for starters they come out second worst in the league — after having been one of the healthiest teams for years before that. A finding like that is where an investigation starts, not where it stops. 13. I did a lot of substation research for the episode that was never aired. I had reported that the substation next to the facility was expanded in 2014. That was wrong, and Rose Rimler and I sorted it out together. They gave me credit on air, which I appreciated, but framed it as a concession on my part to something they had found. In fact I had been investigating it myself, was uncertain before they asked, but was waiting for clarification from Silicon Valley Power. The uncertainty centered around a substation named “Esparanca” that was proposed right behind the facilities as part of the stadium construction, but now appears to never have been built. I spent days in Silicon Valley Power’s records, and did eventually reach Silicon Valley Power for confirmation and indentified the mistake myself. I also gave them highly detailed documents on what we do know about those facilities: new equipment installed between 2010 and 2014, and load growth across the system with an inflection around 2013–2014, with the Northern Receiving Station carrying the highest capacity in the system and sitting closest to the data center corridor. None of that is in the episode. I have a separate piece about it coming out soon. *I cut 2 seconds from the raw audio to remove personal information that had no connection to anything in the episode. Appendix A: the passage the clip was taken from This is the sequence from my first interview, in full. The episode uses one fragment of it. It’s tricky because my understanding is that there’s something like a 15-year half-life on collagen remodeling issues. They’re going to get a new crop of players. What I really need, though, is for the injuries to be broken down so we can see the soft tissue injuries. Right now, they’re categorized as MSK injuries, but let’s say we can actually identify them more specifically. Is that right? He was able to do that? Oh, cool. I wasn’t able to find that information. Interesting — I didn’t know that data existed. I tried so hard to get it, and I didn’t know it was available. Maybe you could connect me with that person. That would be amazing. I’m not wedded to it being an EMF, honestly. I’m not. I would say that, to a certain extent, I’ve staked my reputation on the fact that it needs more study. It’s important to look into it, and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a tendon hypermobility issue. This condition is documented to be partially caused by oxidative stress. I’ve worked with them to mitigate their EMF exposure and have seen people improve. I think it’s a bigger story. In a way, the 49ers represent an occupational cluster with specific exposure risks. If someone would conduct a study on this, I believe we could learn a lot. Perhaps we would discover that it’s like, okay, maybe it’s 10% of the problem. I don’t know the exact number, but I think either way, conducting the study would provide valuable insights. To directly answer your question, it’s challenging for me because it’s part of a bigger story. If the 49ers move and stop having injuries, I might conclude that it was related to the substation. However, if they move and still experience injuries, I would want to analyze the nature of those injuries. Are they primarily soft tissue injuries? I don’t think it’s necessarily a case closed, but the story might lose traction at that point regardless. Three things are worth noting. The aired fragment stops immediately before the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist — the cut described in item 10. It also stops four paragraphs before the words “to directly answer your question.” What the episode plays is the throat-clearing. The actual answer, about what would change my mind, never airs. And two paragraphs in, I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. That is the ranking the episode says I never gave. Appendix B: the full email, July 6th, 1:39 PM Hi Rose, You asked me to send you some studies a couple of weeks ago. I apologize for the delay. I have been incredibly busy. I also wanted to give you a chance to dig in yourself, and get your own perspective before I influenced you too much with mine. That said, I do want to make sure that the actual argument is abundantly clear, so here it is! One note before I begin, there are really two separate questions here: Does the substation cause the soft-tissue injuries? That was my specific claim, and what the podcast is about. Is the theory biologically sound? Can 50/60 Hz fields at these levels do anything biological below the safety limits? Question two is why people have been calling me a conspiracy theorist. The regulatory and advisory bodies (ICNIRP, etc) maintain that anything below their exposure limits is biologically inert, and that position is broadly accepted within the mainstream, but the actual science paints a different picture. To defend my theory I’ve had to defend a much larger claim: that the advisory bodies have the biology wrong. I can’t honestly answer question 1 without first addressing that. Here’s is a simplified outline of my theory, with links to studies: 1. Advisory body thresholds for biological effects The ELF magnetic-field limits (ICNIRP’s ~2,000 mG public / 10,000 mG occupational) exist to prevent acute effects from exposure. If a magnetic field is strong enough, it makes nerves fire and muscles contract. Muscles twitch. You can see faint flashes of light in your vision. People can even feel tingling or even a shock. That happens due to Faraday’s law, which states that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field inside the body via the creation of Eddy currents.The standards assume that those currents do nothing below the twitch threshold. They do not consider chronic effects at all. My argument is that they are biologically active and do have chronic effects. 2. There are multipe ELF-EMF mechanisms for inducing oxidative stress. This is basic biophysics. Below are the two primary mechanisms. Simplest first. Dr. Paul Héroux of McGill has the most intuitive explanation, which rests on Maxwell’s principle of superposition: because Maxwell’s equations are linear, two sets of electromagnetic waves sharing the same space simply add together. In the interview I pictured a pebble dropped into a pond, sending out clean ripples. Then a boat motors past at distance, sending larger waves, and where they meet the ripples, the two add together and the original pattern gets distorted. In our cells, the mitochondria run on continuous currents of electrons and protons that carry their own faint electromagnetic fields. An external field from a substation, by the principle of superposition, adds to those internal currents and shifts the pattern. The electron transport chain in the mitochondria leaks a fraction of its electrons by design as reactive oxygen species (ROS), which act as signalling molecules in a healthy cell. Distorting that field increases that electron leakage, creating oxidative stress. A tiny electromagnetic interference results in a large downstream effect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025006474 The more complex pathway is Dimitris Panagopoulos’s Ion Forced-Oscillation / Voltage-Gated Ion Channel (IFO-VGIC) mechanism. Weak, polarized, low-frequency fields force the ions (calcium, potassium, sodium) next to an ion channel’s voltage sensor to oscillate; because that force scales with the inverse cube of the distance involved, fields far below the stimulation threshold can still force the channel open, disrupting the cell’s ion balance and driving ROS overproduction (Nitric oxide and superoxide interact and produce peroxynitrite, a highly unstable cytotoxin that breaks down into free radicals). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366088934 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/18/10041 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3772193/ 3. Evidence of oxidative stress, in vivo, in humans from ELF-EMF There are many studies, and the strongest are occupational, which applies to the 49ers situation. 115 power-plant workers vs. 145 office controls. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA, the standard lipid-peroxidation marker), superoxide dismutase, and catalase were all significantly higher in the exposed group, and the markers rose with increasing field exposure. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/WOR-203244 A follow-up where they reversed the oxidative stress in power plant workers. A double-blind randomized controlled trial: 91 power-plant workers given vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or placebo for 90 days. The antioxidant groups showed reduced lipid peroxidation and raised antioxidant capacity versus controls. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191586/ A spot-welder study: 46 welders occupationally exposed at 50 Hz, showed significantly altered red-blood-cell antioxidant enzyme activity and concluded ELF-MF “might act as an oxidative stressor… even at the recommended levels of exposure.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18504600/ A substation-specific study found oxidative stress and DNA damage https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24460415/ 4. Oxidative stress degrades collagen This half isn’t controversial at all. Oxidative stress activates the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that break collagen down and suppresses its synthesis. Here are three example studies: Siwik et al. 2001: Oxidative stress raises MMPs and lowers collagen synthesis in cardiac fibroblasts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11121376/ Fisher et al. 2009: Collagen fragmentation drives oxidative stress and elevates MMP-1 in aged human skin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2631323/ Varani et al. 2006: Decreased collagen production in oxidatively aged skin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16723701/ 5. What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis I’m glad you asked this question, and I’m bummed we didn’t get to it in the interview because it is a great question, and very important to understand. Superficially it may appear to be a refutation of my theory, but I would argue that it actually supports the underlying argument. That study used a short, high-intensity pulsed dose: therapeutic-PEMF, the same type of field used clinically to stimulate bone and tissue healing. The reason this works is because it triggers the very same biological pathways that can lead to oxidative stress. The exposure still stimulates ROS production, but done at a controlled dosage, for a limited duration it has a different effect. The cell reads the ROS as a warning signal and it upregulates its antioxidant defenses, and mounts a repair/proliferation response. The therapy is then stopped before the cell gets overwhelmed. That is essentially a hormetic response: a small dose of a stressor producing a beneficial adaptation. Two things follow: At the very least, this means the field is biologically active, which by itself undercuts the regulatory claim that these fields are inert below their thresholds. There is a wealth of literature on PEMF (pulsed EMF) bone regeneration and calcium channel signalling (which is the second mechanims in section one). Here is one. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13856 At best, it leads us straight to my actual concern, which is that under chronic, chaotic and unregulated exposure, the cell’s antioxidant capacity gets overwhelmed, resulting in oxidative stress. There are plentiful examples of things that are beneficial at controlled doses, but harmful at uncontrolled doses. Excecise is one obvious, uncontroversial example. Botox is perhaps a more interesting example. 6. What about a study that shows EMF causing collagen degradation in humans? As far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human, in vivo, or in human tendon in a lab. There are studies involving isolated fibroblasts though, which secrete collagen. The most relevant one showed that human fetal scleral fibroblasts exposed to 50 Hz ELF-EMF showed a significant decrease in collagen synthesis and that MMP-2 expression was upregulated, which is the exact mechanism I described in section 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3626379/ That’s it! Thanks again for the interview. Best, Peter Anthony Cowan Environmental Health · Wellness Tech · Researcher & Journalist Publisher & Editor, Living Energy Bio: petercowan.comSocial: X · Instagram · TikTokApp: sunlightis.lifePhone: [redacted]
Nottingham Forest v Coventry City: Key stats and talking points
Nottingham Forest earned their first win of the season last weekend and now face a bottom-of-the-table Coventry City side yet to score or avoid defeat since their return to the Premier League. Nottingham Forest answered Oliver Glasner's call to find the "final bit missing" when they deservedly beat Aston Villa last weekend. Head coach Glasner was referring to his team's goalscoring issues but it could just as easily apply to their troublesome home form.
Lonestar shines bright at A&L Fair
Lonestar took to the stage on Thursday as a part of the Warren County A&L Fair's entertainment and the community answered in droves, leaving every seat in the Grandstands full
Packers’ Matt LaFLeur gets real on offensive line woes
The Packers’ fourth quarter against the Minnesota Vikings was an abject disaster. Not only did the Vikings put up 29 unanswered points on Green Bay, but the offensive line had no answers for an onslaught of pressure from Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores, who sent blitzes at quarterback Jordan Love on 78.3 percent of dropbacks [...]
DiLorenzo answers questions from voters on heating costs, business experience
Republican 1st Congressional District candidate Anthony DiLorenzo answered questions from voters Thursday in a taping of "Conversation with the Candidate."
John Rave Sends Warning to Contenders After Royals Beat Astros
Kansas City was eliminated from the race a day earlier, and it answered by dropping Houston into a first-place tie with 10 games to go.
Benson, James offer differing plans on tariffs, data centers, health care at Detroit Economic Club
The two major party candidates for Michigan governor answered questions before the Detroit Economic Club Wednesday. As Russ McNamara reports, Republican John James and Democrat Jocelyn Benson had differing visions of governance.
Vox’s Unexplainable explores Scientific American’s biggest unanswered science questions
Rachel Feltman joins Vox’s Unexplainable to discuss the enduring mysteries that continue to challenge science
Chargers’ Offensive Line Raises Major Concerns In Season-Opening Loss
Los Angeles invested heavily in its offensive line, but a poor performance against Arizona exposed major questions that need to be answered quickly.
Saints vs. Lions: Game MVP
Week 1 and Chris Olave has answered the questions why he is worth the contract extension he received
Questions from the Vikings' Week 1 win over the Packers
The Vikings opened the season with a win, but there are plenty of questions that need to be answered moving forward.
Ohio State Pulled Off an All-Time Choke Job
I still can’t believe Ohio State lost this game . The No. 1 team in the country walked into Austin, dominated Texas for three quarters and entered the fourth with a 23-3 lead . Twenty points. One quarter to play. Game over, right? Apparently not. Ohio State proceeded to completely collapse, allowing 21 unanswered points…
Foxes answered questions in Stockport win
Manager Russell Martin says Leicester City answered their critics by beating Stockport County in a seven-goal thriller on Saturday.
Texas A&M Buries Arizona State With 24-Point Fourth Quarter
Texas A&M forced four turnovers and scored 24 unanswered fourth-quarter points to pull away from Arizona State for a 48-20 victory at Kyle Field.
Kansas State Football: Washington State Preview
Washington State needs to run the ball. There are some questions about K-State’s ability to stop the run. Those questions will be answered, one way or another, on Saturday.
The dirtiest places on an airplane; testing for a breast cancer gene mutation; the evolution of esophageal cancer; plus other stories with Vanderbilt Health sources
William Schaffner, MD, Professor of Preventive Medicine, was quoted by several news outlets about public health issues, including: WKRN News 2 (heat-related illness); NBC News (how bad will flu and COVID be this winter?); AAA’s The Extra Mile (the dirtiest places on an airplane); WKRN News 2 (again) (measles in Tennessee); and The Tennessean and Healthline (new COVID vaccines). Schaffner also spoke to the EMJ European Medical Journal for a Q&A interview. Tuya Pal, MD, Professor of Medicine, was quoted in a New York Times story about testing for a breast cancer gene mutation. Michael Gibson, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, was quoted in a MedPage Today story about the epidemiologic evolution of esophageal cancer. Medpage Today writer Shannon Fritz quoted Shravani Durbhakula, MD, Associate Professor of Pain Medicine, who answered questions about a street drug called cychlorphine. Becker’s Behavioral Health picked up the story. WSMV Channel 4 News reporter Diana Rocco interviewed Michael Caucci, MD, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Obstetrics and Gynecology, for a story about postpartum psychosis and the trial of Lindsay Clancy.
World Business Chicago defends Johnson videos but leaves key questions unanswered
State Rep. Curtis Tarver isn’t satisfied, plans to file legislation.
World Business Chicago defends Johnson videos but leaves key questions unanswered
State Rep. Curtis Tarver isn’t satisfied, plans to file legislation.
Saints’ Rookie Named ‘Future Hit’ Ahead of Week 1
The New Orleans Saints still have some questions to be answered at the wide receiver position.If Bryce Lance reaches his potential quickly, though, that could solve a lot of potential issues.And there appear to be at least some people around the league who are big believers in Lance.The Saints took Lance in the fourth round […] The post Saints’ Rookie Named ‘Future Hit’ Ahead of Week 1 appeared first on HEAVY.
I On Politics
CB3 CANDLELIGHT VIGIL: In Remembrance of September 11, 2001, Queens Community Board 3 will hold a Candlelight Vigil on Thursday, September 20, in observance of the 25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001, bringing our community together to remember and honor the lives lost, the first responders who answered the call, the survivors, and all
The next James Bond: the (00)7 questions fans want answered
Speculation has been building recently that an announcement about Daniel Craig's successor could be close.
Michigan Football Mailbag: Kick returners, LB depth, Bryce Underwood
In this week’s Michigan Football Mailbag, we answered questions from our readers about who will return kicks, who to expect at WR3 and CB5, the LB rotation, and more:
HawkeyeRoundtable's Iowa-Northern Illinois Game Prediction
Even with all the unanswered questions at the quarterback position, the Hawkeyes should have little trouble getting off to a 1-0 start.
Miami Dolphins Discussion: Questions You Need Answered Edition
We ask Miami Dolphins fans what questions they need answered by this years version of the team.
BSU sports has a growing budget deficit. Leaders look to 'gold mine' in the parking lot
Last month, Boise State Director of Athletics Jeramiah Dickey appeared on KTIK radio and answered questions about the issues of the day. At one point, host Mike Prater asked Dickey if he’d be at the first-ever game the school would play as a full member of the Pac-12 the following day. “Well, we have the […]
A draw in Cardiff still leaves unanswered questions
BBC Final Score's Laura Kenyon says despite their first Championship goals of the season, Sheffield United still have issues to resolve.
I couldn't land a job, so I started AI training. I earn $100 an hour.
Mo Zohourian couldn't land a full-time job so he answered a LinkedIn and became an AI trainer. He worked up to $100 an hour and made it his career.
5 takeaways from Broncos’ 3 preseason games
The Denver Broncos had a productive preseason and have answered a lot of questions.
Health may finally allow Nolan Smith to answer lingering questions
After three seasons of flashes, injuries and unanswered questions, Nolan Smith enters a pivotal contract year hoping to prove he's a cornerstone.
AI needs science’s search history
“Actually, that’s where the gold is,” said Alasdair Russell, my graduate school friend who leads a pre-clinical genome editing group at Cambridge. He was talking about the winding road of science that is omitted from published papers. “When you’re discussing how to do the experiment, and why this way is better than another way, and what does the data really mean? I know what it shows, but what does it mean?” At RAAIS 2026, he described how his group has begun logging the twisting path of discovery as it happens, recording the verbal and written exchanges that normally disappear. Ideas become nodes in a living graph: they branch when a meeting produces two plausible experiments, merge when separate lines of evidence converge, and go dark when someone quietly stops pursuing them. In his implementation, one agent scores novelty, while another tries to learn “how scientists think and how they navigate through a complex world of data,” so that high-potential nodes can trigger deeper investigation. As frontier AI labs deploy agents toward scientific discovery, giving AI authentic scientific taste remains a trillion-dollar dilemma. The bottleneck is that the record we have kept for centuries of science might be insufficient to get us there. The experiments that never make the paper Peter Medawar, 1960 Nobel laureate and “father of transplantation,” asked in 1963 whether the scientific paper was a fraud, and answered yes: the form of the paper misrepresents the thinking that produced it. Sixty years on, the diagnosis is unchanged. A paper presents a clean progression from hypothesis to result to conclusion. Lost along the way are the unconventional theories, the abandoned or unaffordable methods, and the underwhelming and inconclusive data. It reads like a browser history with every dead end deleted: the ten open tabs, the four rephrased queries, the wrong turn down a subforum. All scrubbed, leaving one clean path from question to answer as the canonical path. What has changed since then is that the discarded material is now worth something. No high-impact journal wants these artifacts, but raw trial and error is the most likely source of the training data required to develop scientific intuition, or what researchers call taste. Earlier attempts to capture the discards were motivated by scientific integrity. The Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine launched in 2002 to publish rigorous studies that disputed established models or exposed ineffective treatments. Its archive preserved negative conclusions after they had become papers, rather than the live alternatives and arguments that produced them. BioMed Central closed it in 2017, saying the mission had been served now that other journals publish null results. A less generous reading is that in fifteen years it published around 200 papers because almost nobody wants to read a negative result, let alone write one up when it will not count toward academic tenure. AI models are different. Even an uninteresting negative result can be useful, provided it is labeled. Earlier this year, Anthropic put a version of this to the test. The company pulled 129 decision points from real Claude Code sessions between January and March 2026, showed models the work up to a human detour, and asked what should happen next. Claude Mythos Preview beat the human choice 64% of the time, while Opus 4.5 managed 51%. The comparison was tilted toward the models because Anthropic deliberately chose moments where the human decision had room for improvement. On 127 further scenarios where the human action was already strong, the models improved on it only about 20% of the time. The study was possible because Anthropic’s researchers work inside a tool that logs by default. The reasoning, detours and outcome are produced in the same working environment. Biology has no equivalent. Its reasoning happens in hallways, at benches, in Slack threads and on whiteboards, while the outcome arrives weeks later somewhere else. The record has to emerge from the work itself. Ask scientists to reconstruct it afterwards and we’ll create another polished account. Subscribe A log is not a label Before any of this becomes training data, a negative result has to say what failed. The first paper published in the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine examined 234 negative studies across five leading medical journals. Only 30% discussed statistical power, and half clearly defined a primary outcome. Tell a model an experiment failed, without telling it whether the assay was underpowered, a reagent had degraded, or the hypothesis was simply wrong, and it will learn noise with confidence. Decision histories have a second missing label too. When a lab considers five experiments and runs one, only the chosen branch returns an outcome. The other four are experimental counterfactuals. Researchers call this the selective labels problem: the data reveal results only for the actions someone chose to take. Such a record can teach a model to imitate a lab’s taste, but it cannot establish that the taste was good. It also smuggles local constraints into general lessons. A lab that never ran cryo-EM because it did not own a microscope teaches a model that cryo-EM is rarely the right call. Alasdair’s nodes preserve the candidate set, which is the necessary first step. To be useful, each decision record needs six fields: The evidence available at that moment, and nothing that arrived later. The candidates considered, including the ones dismissed in a sentence. For each candidate: the expected result, the confidence attached to it, and the cost in time and money. The route chosen, and the reason. What happened next. How the evidence changed the scientist’s view. These must be timestamped before the outcome, because hindsight turns uncertainty into inevitability. Disagreement also has to survive. Averaging three scientists into one clean rationale reproduces exactly the information loss we are trying to fix. But there is an obvious failure mode here. Once decisions are logged and scored, people log for the record post-facto. Anyone who has watched an electronic lab notebook fill up with retrospective tidying knows how quickly a research tool becomes a compliance exercise. A record that costs a scientist ten minutes of honest reflection per decision is worth far more than one that costs an hour of performance. A publication initiative called Registered Reports offers a useful starting point. Here, researchers submit their rationale, methods and analysis plan for peer review before the data exist, and the journal commits in principle to publish if they follow the approved plan. Nature has now expanded the format across every field it covers. This approach to paper writing timestamps intent before the outcome, but it freezes one plan. A useful search history must also preserve how the plan changed, which alternatives were rejected, when, and on what evidence. Subscribe Run the runner-up Autonomous labs show what happens when decisions and outcomes are connected in a loop. Liverpool’s mobile robotic chemist ran 688 experiments over eight days in a ten-variable formulation space. A batched Bayesian search used each result to choose the next experiments and found photocatalyst mixtures six times more active than the starting formulations. Every completed experiment changed what the system did next. The robot optimized within a goal and search space that humans had already chosen. It did not decide which scientific question mattered. So what this work demonstrates is narrower, but still useful: a search history pays off when the options return standardized outcomes quickly. Open-ended biology is harder because branches can take weeks and the discarded alternatives may never be run. Some exploration therefore has to be bought. Where two branches are plausible and the stakes justify the cost, a lab should sometimes run the runner-up. Otherwise the record captures what today’s scientists usually chose and stays silent on what they systematically overlooked. A funder could ring-fence a small fraction of a grant for the branch not taken, provided that the decision record and the outcome are both deposited. That costs money, but so does having every lab rediscover the same abandoned path. Test whether taste transfers When it comes time to evaluate if our new AI system exhibits taste, the comparison should run across laboratories and fields. At selected decision points in a live research campaign, we should freeze the six fields: the evidence, the candidates, expected results, confidence, costs and the choice made. Experts then rank the options before the outcomes are known, and those outcomes are checked independently later. We could give models one of two diets - papers alone, or papers plus decision histories - and ask them to rank the next experiment on unfamiliar projects. Then, we score information gained per dollar and week, calibration, and how quickly weak branches are abandoned. If histories improve choices only inside the lab that produced them, they amount to useful organizational memory. If they improve choices on unfamiliar problems elsewhere, Alasdair’s group will have captured something science has never managed to write down: a transferable record of taste. Until that happens, a scientific search history is a promising record, not yet a training set.
3 main takeaways from Cowboys’ joint practice with Rams
The Dallas Cowboys got their first opportunity to test themselves against team during Tuesday’s joint practice with the Los Angeles Rams, and there was plenty to like — especially on defense. Facing reigning MVP Matthew Stafford and a Rams team off a trip to the NFC Championship Game provided Dallas with a strong measuring stick before preseason action. The Cowboys defense answered the challenge, creating turnovers and consistently disrupting Los Angeles’ offense.
CBS announces Week 1 changes to 2026 NFL broadcast booths
The biggest question CBS Sports had to answer at its media days on Tuesday was asked and answered in under three minutes. After acknowledging the Tony Romo-sized elephant in the room, the network was forced to explain the down-ballot impact on the rest of its broadcast booths, with J.J. Watt being promoted to the lead…
Amanda Knox says new comedy show honors murdered roommate Meredith Kercher, as Kercher’s sister slams it
Amanda Knox has answered critics of her new comedy show. Here’s what the wrongly convicted woman says about ‘Cartwheel.’
Heart experts fear Trump’s FDA is ‘ignoring decades of evidence’ as it authorizes new nicotine pouches
The FDA has authorized four new flavored nicotine pouches, highlighting their potential to help adults stop smoking cigarettes. The American Heart Association shared its concerns with the move, saying "key questions" remain unanswered.
The Onetime Boy Wonder of Texas Politics Has a Lot of Stories to Tell
But at 88, Ben Barnes is still haunted by one unanswered question.
Pixel Watch 5 Specs Tell Us the Upgrades to Expect
Are there any unanswered questions surrounding the launch of the Pixel 11 series and Pixel Watch 5? Not many. A new specs list leak for the Pixel Watch 5 may have just about cleared up any...
Risky Business: Patent Term Adjustment in the Post- Forest Era
What value is a patent that expires before it issues? Until recently, that question seemed wholly academic. In In re Forest, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit answered it directly.
Biggest unanswered questions after the first week of training camp
What are the biggest questions you have after the first week of training camp?
SD United wins Fastpitch Northern National championship
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — SD United scored 15 unanswered runs to cruise to victory over SD Players in the Fastpitch Northern National championship on Sunday afternoon. The Players took a five-run lead in the top of the first inning but United came back ablaze, putting up five runs of their own to tie the […]
Bears offense answered Ben Johnson's challenge in Friday's practice
Chicago Bears coach Ben Johnson is emphasizing two-minute situations in training camp, and the offense delivered on Friday.
Health advocates raise alarms about Nebraska’s ‘rushed’ implementation of Medicaid work requirements
After Nebraska implemented new Medicaid work rules eight months ahead of a federal deadline, Angela Lindstrom with the Health Center Association of Nebraska said some residents have waited up to 90 minutes on the state’s phone line to get their questions answered.
Cyclospora confusion? Four questions about the parasite in Minnesota, answered
Minnesotans can be reassured that the large multistate outbreak of cyclosporiasis infections, a gastrointestinal illness caused by cyclospora, has not yet reached the state.
Arkansas basketball press conferences: Previewing Bahamas exhibitions
JJ Andrews, Cooper Bowser and Abdou Toure answered questions ahead of the Razorbacks' four-game trip to Nassau.
7 Key Garmin Cirqa Questions Answered By Garmin
Garmin clears up some FAQs about the Garmin Cirqa, its latest tracker, including exactly who should consider buying one. And it is not absolutely everyone.
A Taylor-made comeback helps Mets defeat Dodgers 8-3
Emmet Sheehan goes five solid innings, but the bullpen gives up seven unanswered runs in 8-3 loss to Mets.
Eye On Politics: Paxton's unanswered questions, Talarico expands outreach
3 unanswered questions before training camp: Denver Broncos edition
The Broncos' offense still belongs to head coach Sean Payton, but what can be injected now that Davis Webb is taking over play-calling?
Language radiologists use in reports is crucial, new research shows
Indeterminate reports can leave ordering providers with unanswered questions that could potentially delay care, authors of a new paper caution.
Sphere Entertainment: Too Many Unanswered Questions
Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) rated Sell: high capex, unproven sphere demand, $330M depreciation drag and premium valuation. See more details here.
Caitlin Clark is 'a political football in this country,' says NBA's Adam Silver
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver answered questions about Caitlin Clark and WNBA officiating Thursday, saying "it's become political ping-pong with her."
Asked & Answered at PTTOW! Entertainment: The $3 Trillion Question Driving the Future of Entertainment
LOS ANGELES, July 16, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The entertainment business has always run on separation. On February 25, 2026, PTTOW! pulled that...
The ’Gay’ Attacks on Lindsey Graham Are All About Politics
Was Lindsey Graham gay? As the author of a book about the history of gay Washington, D.C., it’s a question I’ve been asked frequently for years, and even more so since his sudden death last weekend. The South Carolina Republican’s lifelong confirmed bachelorhood, vocal intonation, and Southern dandy demeanor (if not sartorial choices) prompted many to conclude that he was, as they say in that part of the country, “light in his loafers.” Graham’s repeated attestations to the contrary had zero effect on those invested in the narrative that he was. Only about the matter of J. Edgar Hoover’s rumored cross-dressing (for which there is much circumstantial but no direct evidence) am I questioned more. Whenever I’ve been asked to speculate upon Graham’s sexuality—and speculate was all that I or anyone else could do—I always answered the question honestly. While my personal sense is that Graham was probably gay, as a journalist and a historian I cannot rely on my intuition to make factual assertions. (Gaydar hasn’t yet been scientifically perfected.) Given the absence of any known female or male romantic interests, Graham may very well have been a heterosexual unlucky in love. He might also have been asexual. Barring the highly unlikely postmortem emergence of a personal diary or some other unassailable evidence attesting to Graham’s innermost yearnings, we will never know the answer. As is depressingly the case these days when a public figure dies, a chorus of voices reveled in Graham’s passing, many of them making light of his presumed homosexuality.
Starmer says his political journey is over at his last question session as UK leader
Keir Starmer has answered questions from lawmakers in the House of Commons for the last time before leaving the prime minister's office next week
Braves fans sound off on their ideal All-Star Game
How would the All-Star Game work if you were in charge? We asked, you answered.
How Cycling Solved Sleep
AURILLAC, France — Is the Tour de France is the most competitive sleep environment in sports? “Probably, yeah,” answered Dr. Jon Greenwell, EF-Education EasyPost’s Head Doctor when I asked him. Every athlete needs to recover, though the demands on professional cyclists at the biggest race in the sport are unique. Riders have to be fresh…
'This was the easy part for Alonso'
The Drake Suite at Stamford Bridge is adorned with pictures of Chelsea managers holding trophies. Many of these pictures are of Jose Mourinho, but fellow Premier League winner Antonio Conte also features. Xabi Alonso motioned to these as he answered a question on his illustrious predecessors during his unveiling news conference on Monday, saying he is "really honoured and privileged" to follow in their footsteps.
Cavs Coach Gives Promising Update On Signing LeBron James
The LeBron James free agency chase has fans wondering where his next destination will be, but the Cleveland Cavaliers have a lot of reasons to be confident. Head coach Kenny Atkinson did a talking spot on television during one of the Summer League games and answered questions about the Cavaliers offseason. James obviously came up […] The post Cavs Coach Gives Promising Update On Signing LeBron James appeared first on HEAVY.
Mitch McConnell mystery deepens as health questions remain unanswered
Senator’s office has released only sparse details about hospital stay, leaving fevered speculation to fill vacuum
The Steelers Have the Pieces to Contend in the AFC
The Pittsburgh Steelers have undergone a lot of change during the 2026 offseason. While the team has not answered the question of who their franchise quarterback is, they are focused on gearing up for a deep run next year. This will not be easy. The AFC is a bloodbath of a conference, with teams trading […] The post The Steelers Have the Pieces to Contend in the AFC appeared first on The Lead.
What we know—and don't—about Mitch McConnell's health and hospitalization
Here's what we know so far, along with the questions that remain unanswered about Sen. Mitch McConnell's hospitalization.
Mitch McConnell Health Questions Raise Kentucky Senate Succession Issues
Kentucky changed its Senate succession law, but the law leaves unanswered questions that could become important if McConnell cannot finish his term.