James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

Maria Branyas Morera lived to the age of 117 with a bit of genetic luck and a healthy diet that included daily yogurts, according to a study published today in Cell Reports Medicine. During her final year — she died on 19 August 2024 — she was verified as the oldest living person, a feat that drew the attention of researchers who explore the biology of ageing.

“We wanted to learn from her particular case to benefit other people,” says Manel Esteller, a physician specializing in genetics at the University of Barcelona in Spain.

At the time, Branyas was living in the small town of Olot, in the Catalonia region of Spain, where she enjoyed reading books, playing with dogs and spending time with friends and family, including her two daughters, both in their 90s. Over several encounters with Branyas and her family, Esteller and his colleagues collected samples of her blood, saliva, urine, and stool that provided insights into her unique physiology, including her genetics, metabolism, and gut microbiome.

The supercentenarian was happy to collaborate. “She was a very humble person,” Esteller recalls. “She said: ‘My only merit is that I’m alive’.”

The researchers compared Branyas’s genetic, metabolomic, and other profiles with those of women of various ages living in the same region. One of the main insights from the work, Esteller says, is that it is possible to distinguish molecular changes that happen in the body because of ageing from those that occur because of poor health.

For instance, the research team learnt that Branyas’s telomeres — the stretches of repetitive DNA that protect the ends of chromosomes — were exceptionally short. Telomeres naturally shorten with age, and unusually short telomeres have been associated with age-related diseases. But Branyas had no such illnesses. “This is telling us that the loss of telomeres is not necessarily associated with disease, it’s simply associated with being old,” Esteller says.

Mayana Zatz, a geneticist at the University of São Paulo in Brazil who studies the genetics of healthy centenarians, says the study is thorough but notes that conclusions that are based on a single individual are limited. “It would be interesting to compare the findings with supercentenarians in other populations,” she says.

Winning the genetics lottery

While analysing Branyas’s genome, the authors spotted genetic variants that are known to protect against cardiovascular disease, cognitive loss, and diabetes. By contrast, they found no variants associated with increased risk for certain deleterious conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease.

The researchers also looked for genes linked to longevity. “She had variants in genes that, in other beings like dogs, worms, and flies, are associated with extreme lifespan,” Esteller says. “She was lucky in the genetics lottery.”

But her luck didn’t end there. Branyas aced her bloodwork; she had low levels of ‘bad’ cholesterol and high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol, which suggests an efficient lipid metabolism. Her inflammation markers were also low, and she had a strong immune system — at the age of 113, she was the oldest person in Spain to have COVID-19 and survive. “Sometimes our immune cells get a little bit unloyal and start to attack our own cells, causing inflammation,” Esteller says. “There was nothing like that.”

Esteller thinks Branyas’s lack of inflammation could be linked to her healthy gut microbiome, which resembled that of a much younger person. He points to her high levels of Bifidobacterium, a genus of beneficial bacteria that was probably boosted by her diet, which included three daily servings of yogurt.

Some of her other lifestyle choices that probably contributed to her longevity included eating a Mediterranean diet and exercising regularly. “Our genes are the cards in a poker game,” Esteller says. “But how we play them is what really matters.”

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The Trump administration has revived the practice of separating families in order to coerce immigrants and asylum seekers to leave the US, attorneys and former immigration officials allege.

In several cases, officials have retaliated against immigrants who challenged deportation orders by forcibly separating them from their children, a Guardian investigation found. The officials misclassified the children as “unaccompanied minors” before placing them in government-run shelters or foster care.

The new practice has taken effect as the administration has also issued stringent new limits on who can take custody of unaccompanied minors, which advocates say keep thousands of children away from their relatives.

“This is a tactic to punish people for not acquiescing,” said Faisal Al-Juburi, head of external affairs at the legal aid group Raíces. “It’s a tactic to get immigrants to relent, to agree to self-deport.”

The recent separations echo the “zero tolerance” policy of the first Trump administration, when the US systematically separated more than 5,600 migrant children from their parents and caregivers at the US-Mexico border. Images of agents pulling children from their parents’ arms and placing them in overcrowded metal cages sparked domestic and international outrage, and Donald Trump ended the policy.

But seven years later, hundreds of parents have still been unable to reunify with their children; the administration lost track of many of the families it tore apart. Though the new separations so far appear less pervasive than the original policy, experts and attorneys said that it could result in another crisis of prolonged, permanent separations.

“I would say that the main difference is just that the separations are now happening all over the country, as opposed to at the border, concentrated in areas where you could visibly go see it,” said Michelle Brané, a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official who served under the Biden administration. “But the rest of it is not that different. The objective is still to be cruel and send a message that people should not come to the US – that they should leave.”

Family separation is one of several ways in which the US government is, increasingly, moving immigrants around the country – shuffling detainees through a vast, chaotic system that advocates say is intentionally cruel.

An analysis of leaked flight records and US government detention data, as well as interviews with immigrants, attorneys, and former officials, revealed that immigrants are increasingly moved without notice away from their families, communities,s and legal counsel – leading to apparent violations of constitutional due-process rights.

The Guardian reviewed leaked flight data from Global Crossing Airlines, the charter company that operates the majority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) flights, and found that the vast majority of these trips during the first three months of the second Trump administration were between domestic US airports. The airline transported nearly 44,000 immigrants – including 1,000 children – during that time. US detention data revealed that since the inauguration, nearly 2,350 kids under the age of 18, including 36 infants, have been booked into immigration detention centers around the country.

In cases reviewed by the Guardian, parents were moved between detention centers several times after being separated from their children, and in the process were unable to coordinate calls with their kids or their lawyers. Amid the chaos, immigration experts and advocates have the raised alarm that the government could, as it did during the first Trump administration, lose track of where it is sending parents and children, resulting in indefinite or permanent separations.

For LW, a 37-year-old mother who came to the US with her 10-year-old son in April seeking political asylum, returning to China was not an option.

LW told her lawyers and immigration officers that she had been sexually assaulted by multiple high-ranking government officials in China. After reporting an assault to the police, Chinese government operatives threatened her with imprisonment – or death. That’s what was awaiting her in China, she told US immigration agents.

In a sworn declaration in her immigration case that her lawyers shared with the Guardian, LW alleged her pleas to allow her and her son to remain together while they applied for asylum were ignored by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in San Diego, California, who forced the mother and son into an unmarked vehicle, and began driving them toward the local airport. According to her sworn declaration, agents told her if she refused to get on a flight back home, the government would take her son away from her.

At the airport, the agents tried to drag LW toward the terminals. “I said I needed a lawyer, but they refused, telling me that nobody would want to help me,” she said in her declaration. “Desperate and terrified of what might happen, I dropped to the ground and the officers let me go.”

Later that day, she said they drove her and her son back to a CBP facility in San Diego – and then moved them to an Ice facility in Texas. But a month later, she said, immigration agents followed through on their threat: they took her son away and placed him in foster care.

Her lawyers said that she and her son have now been separated for nearly five months. He turned 11 in the interim.

LW remains detained at an Ice facility in New Mexico, while her son has been placed at a government shelter for unaccompanied minors in New York.

.

Family separations were the hallmark of the first Trump administration’s border policy. Now advocates allege migrant families are being split up again as a retaliatory measure

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The first government shutdown in nearly seven years left federal agencies in flux and many of their employees in a state of confusion on Wednesday, as they received last-minute and conflicting instructions from managers.

Even though the likelihood of a shutdown has been high for months, agencies were late to post their contingency plans compared with previous years, leaving employees and the public in the dark about what to expect. And internal guidance to work forces in some cases was not consistent with the official plans. Some employees who expected to be furloughed learned on Wednesday that they had to report to work.

But despite the uncertainty inside the government, the initial ripple effects across the country were scattered and limited.

There was no major disruption to air travel. The Internal Revenue Service answered calls from taxpayers. And federal agents arrested immigrants who showed up for routine court appearances in Lower Manhattan.

But the impact was felt elsewhere. The Jimmy Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta was closed, and visitors got a quick civic lesson: Presidential libraries are operated by the federal National Archives and Records Administration, which furloughed more than half of its staff.

“We thought it was privately funded, or we would have come yesterday,” said Cindy Mobley, 64, of Baltimore. Ms. Mobley and her husband were in town visiting their son, a freshman at nearby Emory University.

Not being able to visit the museum, Ms. Mobley said, “is a small price to pay if it leads to something better for all of our citizens.” She said she supported congressional Democrats who are refusing to agree to a spending plan that does not restore funding for Medicaid and extend health insurance subsidies.

For Chris Hill, of New York, the first day of the shutdown brought an unprompted message from the Department of Veterans Affairs. He said he had been working with the agency to resolve a benefits issue regarding his late father and was surprised to see the message informing him that the government was shut down, noting that some agency services would not be available.

The message also blamed Democrats for the shutdown, which Mr. Hill said also caught him by surprise.

“It was such a political and one-sided message sent out by a department that is supposed to deal equally with veterans, regardless of their political opinions,” he said in an interview.

Similar political responses have come from other agencies, marking what many believe to be the first time an administration has used the bureaucracy to deliver blatantly partisan messaging during a shutdown.

Legal experts say doing so violates a federal law, the Hatch Act, designed to ensure that the federal work force operates free of political influence or coercion. And many federal workers expressed discomfort about being drawn into the political morass.

More federal employees are working in the opening hours of this shutdown than in those of previous years, in part because of pockets of available funding for certain agencies that do not come from annual congressional appropriations. For the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, some of the extra money is coming from President Trump’s signature domestic policy law, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill. That law prioritized spending for homeland defense and immigration enforcement.

.

The government shutdown has affected visits to some sites, like Everglades National Park and the Liberty Bell, and left some infrastructure projects in limbo. Credit…Alex Kent for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The abrupt termination last month of nearly half a billion dollars in US government contracts for mRNA vaccine research rattled scientists working inside and outside industry. The cuts raised alarm about the country’s commitment to the Nobel-prizewinning technology, which is credited with saving millions of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic and is regarded as essential for fighting viruses in the future.

Yet not all large-scale research into mRNA vaccines in the United States is being dismantled. Nature has learnt that, even as the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — led by vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr — pulls back, the country’s military continues to bankroll parts of the same research.

Among the beneficiaries are programmes developing vaccines against some of the world’s deadliest pathogens, including the virus that causes Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF), a tick-borne disease that kills up to 40% of those infected. In the United States, the government considers such research crucial because these pathogens not only threaten soldiers deployed abroad, but could also ignite a global outbreak.

“A lot of us are at least relieved the Department of Defense [DoD] is not abandoning mRNA research,” says Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease specialist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland.

Still, he cautions that the HHS’s rejection of the technology, combined with broader policy fractures across the government, threatens to hobble national — and global—readiness for emerging infectious threats.

“The whole biodefence structure is completely derailed,” Adalja says. “I’ve never seen it be disconnected like this.”

Turbulent times

Peter Berglund learnt that his company’s federally backed vaccine programme was being cut the same way that many other affected firms did in a 5 August notice from the HHS’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which ordered an immediate shutdown of ongoing studies. For Berglund, chief scientific officer at HDT Bio in Seattle, Washington, the news was a gut punch, as he told colleagues at a conference on RNA-based therapeutics in Boston, Massachusetts, this month.

HDT had been developing a next-generation CCHF vaccine based on a form of RNA that can copy itself inside cells. The company had secured tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts, which it used first to test a shot in mice and monkeys, and then to begin a human trial in Texas this July. The BARDA memo brought everything to a halt the very next month.

But “that was mommy”, Berglund says. “Then daddy calls.”

Within days, HDT executives heard from project managers at the DoD’s Joint Program Executive Office (JPEO) for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense, which had been co-funding the CCHF vaccine research. HDT was told to restart its trial, with the JPEO pledging support through at least this first phase of clinical evaluation.

“It’s been so turbulent,” Berglund says. The DoD funding, although substantial, is less than what had originally been pledged in conjunction with BARDA. “But, at least now we can advance it through phase I,” and worry about the rest later, he adds.

A ‘restructuring’ of resources

Others with projects co-funded by the JPEO also learnt of funding cuts and a “restructuring of collaborations” in the 5 August notice. But their situation is less clear.

Earlier this month, AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Cambridge, UK, began a human trial of two mRNA vaccines, despite the notice. Each is designed to protect against a different strain of avian influenza. Clinical-trial registries still list both BARDA and the JPEO as collaborators.

An AstraZeneca spokesperson declined to comment on the US government’s role in funding the trial against bird flu, which has been infecting US poultry and dairy cattle and raising the spectre of a leap into humans. The JPEO did not respond to requests for comment.

In a statement, HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard disputed suggestions that withdrawing from joint projects would weaken the nation’s pandemic preparedness, writing that “BARDA is prioritizing evidence-based, ethically grounded solutions.”

The JPEO and BARDA had also been jointly funding a preclinical-stage vaccine programme for biotechnology firm Moderna in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The mRNA shot is aimed at Marburg virus — a close but even deadlier relative of Ebola — which caused an outbreak earlier this year in northwest Tanzania, resulting in ten deaths. Neither Moderna nor its collaborator, the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, responded to e-mails from Nature seeking comment on the project’s funding status.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

On the scientific merits alone, Dr. Goodall’s discoveries about how wild chimpanzees raised their young, established leadership, socialized and communicated broke new ground and attracted immense attention and respect among researchers. Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionary biologist and science historian, said her work with chimpanzees “represents one of the Western world’s great scientific achievements.”

And in becoming one of the most famous scientists of the 20th century, Dr. Goodall opened the door for more women in her largely male field as well as across all of science. Women — including Dian Fossey, Biruté Galdikas, Cheryl Knott and Penny Patterson — came to dominate the field of primate behavior research.

On learning of Dr. Goodall’s documented evidence that humans were not the only creatures capable of making and using tools, Louis Leakey, the paleoanthropologist and Dr. Goodall’s mentor, famously remarked, “Now we must redefine ‘tool,’ redefine ‘man,’ or accept chimpanzees as humans.”Dr. Goodall’s willingness to challenge scientific convention and shape the details of her arduous research into a riveting adventure narrative about two primary subjects — the chimps and herself — turned her into a household name in the United States and overseas.

Long before focus groups, message discipline, and communications plans became crucial tools in advancing high-profile careers and alerting the world to significant discoveries in and outside of science, Dr. Goodall understood the benefits of being the principal narrator and star of her own story of discovery.

In articles and books, her lucid prose carried vivid descriptions, some lighthearted, of the numerous perils she encountered in the African rainforest — malaria, leopards, crocodiles, spitting cobras, and deadly giant centipedes, to name a few. Her writing gained its widest attention in three more long articles in National Geographic in the 1960s and ’70s and in three well-received books, “My Friends, the Wild Chimpanzees” (1967), “In the Shadow of Man” (1971) and “Through a Window” (1990).

Dr. Goodall’s gentle and knowledgeable demeanor — set against the beautiful yet dangerous Gombe preserve and its playful and unpredictable primates — proved irresistible to television. In December 1965, CBS News broadcast a documentary of her work in prime time, the first in a long string of nationally and internationally televised special reports about the chimpanzees of Gombe and the courageous woman steadfastly chronicling what she called their “rich emotional life.”Most of Dr. Goodall’s observations focused on several generations of a troop of 30 to 40 chimpanzees, the species genetically closest to humans. She named and grew to know each of them personally. She was particularly interested in their courtship, mating rituals, births and parenting.

Dr. Goodall was the first scientist to explain to the world that chimpanzee mothers are capable of giving birth only once every four and a half to six years, and that only one or two babies were produced each year by the Gombe Stream troop. She found that first-time mothers generally hid their babies from the adult males, prompting frantic displays by the males — leaping and hooting that could last five minutes. An experienced mother, however, she discovered, freely allowed males and other females to view her infant, satisfying their curiosity, in a far calmer introduction.

In her many articles, books, and documentaries, Dr. Goodall explored similar signal moments in her own life. In March 1964, after a nearly yearlong courtship, she married Mr. van Lawick. Three years later, she gave birth to Hugo Eric Louis van Lawick, her only child, whom she nicknamed Grub.

.

Jane Goodall, seen here in 2017, attracted immense attention and respect among researchers with her account of the lives of Flo, David Greybeard, Fifi, and other members of the troop of primates she observed in East Africa.Credit…Gabriela Herman for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:

• Archaeologists uncovered a culturally rich ancient tomb in Spain.
• The 5,000-year-old stone tomb in Malaga is an impressive 42 feet in length.
• Full of cultural artifacts, experts believe the tomb will provide new information on ancient customs.

Researchers recently unearthed a 5,000-year-old stone-built monument tomb in Malaga, Spain, that’s comes in at an impressive 42 feet in length. Even better, it’s incredibly well preserved—and stuffed full of artifacts.

“We could be talking about one of the most monumental and complete dolmens in all of Andalusia [the southernmost autonomous region of Spain],” Serafin Becerra, professor at the University of Cádiz, said in a translated statement from the school. A dolmen refers to the stone megalith-style structure discovered at the site.

Project co-director Eduardo Vijande agreed. “The true potential of this structure,” he said, “lies in its extraordinary state of conservation, which will allow us to gain a detailed understanding of the lifestyles and beliefs of these communities.”

The stone tomb isn’t just long—it’s complex. With orthostat slabs (defined as upright stones) over six feet tall, the site features several internal compartments, each with the potential to expand our understanding of funerary practices across the southern Iberian Peninsula during the third millennium B.C.E.

Once inside, the researchers located several “prestigious” container rooms featuring the bones of deceased individuals and a range of grave goods—from exotic raw materials of ivory and amber to seashells and what the team is dubbing “sophisticated flint pieces.” The flint collection includes arrowheads, large-format blades, and an “exceptional halberd” (a two-handed axe-like weapon).

Across multiple excavation seasons, the researchers located multiple container rooms (known as ossuaries), showing that the site was likely a collective burial ground.

“The entire dolmen was also covered by horizontal large stone slabs, and on top of this covering, there was a tumulus [a human-made mound] of sand and small stones,” Eduarda Vijande Villa, an associated professor of prehistory at the University of Cádiz and co-director of the excavations, told Live Science.

Along with providing an understanding of the types of tools and cultural goods used 5,000 years ago, Juan Jesús Cantillo—a professor at the University of Cádiz—said that “the presence of seashells in an inland area reflects the importance of the sea as an element of prestige and the existence of long-distance exchange networks.”

The use of dolmens wasn’t relegated to just the southern Iberian Peninsula, and has cropped up across history in various time periods and regions of the world. In some cases, the sites were more than just tombs. Some held significant cultural or ritual meaning, others served as places to shelter, or and still others served as key territorial markers delineating land ownership.

Famed dolmens span from Europe to Asia, but new discoveries continue to expand our understanding of the practice of their creation. Some of the most well-known dolmens in Europe include Spain’s 7,000-year-old Dolmen of Guadalperal—dubbed the “Spanish Stonehenge” and typically submerged in water, though it will appear in times of drought—and the 5,000-year-old Arthur’s Stone in England, which features nine upright stones weighing an estimated 27 tons.

.

Photos by R A Kearton//Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

This episode was made possible by the support of Yakult and produced independently by Scientific American’s board of editors.

Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.

People often talk about having “gut feelings,” but new research suggests there may be more to the idiom than we thought. Scientists are finding that specialized cells in our intestines can send signals directly to the brain, potentially influencing appetite and even mood.

Recent studies hint that our microbiomes could play a role in this communication system, though researchers are still trying to understand exactly how these interactions work and what they mean for our health.

Here to walk us through the emerging science of the belly-to-brain connection is Maya Kaelberer, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona in the Department of Physiology.

Thanks so much for coming on to chat with us today.

Maya Kaelberer: It’s my pleasure. I’m happy to be here.

Feltman: So you recently co-authored a study that looks at the gut-brain connection a little bit. Could you tell us a little bit about why scientists are interested in that and what we know about it so far?

Kaelberer: Yeah, I mean, I think more than just scientists are interested in it; we have our gut feelings all the time. And so my work is really focused on understanding the biology behind those gut feelings and how is it that our gut can communicate to us. ’Cause we know, right, things like hangry exist. We know that how we feel or what food we eat or even what microbes are there is gonna affect overall how we feel in the world.

Feltman: Mm.

Kaelberer: And so understanding the molecular and cellular and neuronal connections between the gut and the brain is gonna help us better understand, like, this relationship that we have, that we have these gut feelings, right?

Feltman: Yeah.

Kaelberer: We know they’re there [laughs].

Feltman: Well, and beyond, you know, hanger, which is obviously a great example, what are some conditions that have been connected to the gut that might surprise people?

Kaelberer: So when I was in my postdoc we discovered that there was this direct connection between these cells in the surface of the gut, we call them neuropod cells, and neurons that communicate directly—they reach directly into the brain. And so we call this as—our “gut sense,” and the number-one question I would always get was: Who cares? Like, what [laughs], you know, what is our gut possibly telling us that our mouth and our nose did not already tell us about the food that we ate?

And so we delved into this a little bit more in some previous publications with regards to sugar sensing, and I use this example ’cause it’s really salient in my own life, which is that I like artificial sweetener in my coffee.

Feltman: Mm.

Kaelberer: And I don’t like regular sugar because regular sugar just feels heavy to me, and I want that, like, artificial sweetener. It kind of keeps me going. I can be caffeinated. I can be, like, on the go. I’m not gonna, like, sit down and take a nap afterwards. And so we know that these two stimuli feel different in our gut. And what we found is that these neuropod cells are actually distinguishing between the two stimuli, between real sugar and artificial sweetener. And they release different signals, and then the signal for sugar actually drives the animal to consume the sugar over the artificial sweetener.

So now we take it back to my coffee preference, and suddenly, I’m like, “Well, this makes sense. I like the artificial sweetener because I don’t want that heaviness.” And that heaviness is telling me that that food was gratifying or that food was satisfying; there was some kind of value associated with that that’s gonna help me survive in nature. And so then this is now this communication system of, like, “Oh, our gut sense is telling us something about the food we eat past whether or not it tastes good. It’s telling us a little bit about the value of what we’re consuming.”

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete text and podcast:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Dear GEP,

I am trying for my first child, which is both exciting and making me anxious. I thought babies didn’t need much, but the more I talk to other people, the more I realize that having a child will be as expensive as it is wonderful. What do I actually need to support a kid? And is anyone ever financially ready to have a baby?

There is a saying widely repeated in my family that all you really need to have a baby is “a towel, and a drawer.” My father, who has had five children and eight grandchildren, is the origin of this statement – and I don’t doubt that when he had his first baby in the early seventies, at the age of 27, they didn’t have too much more than those advised essentials.

As I folded hand-me-downs last month with my younger brother, whose first baby is now just a few weeks old, we chuckled about our dad’s perhaps apocryphal advice. What did he know, anyway? What’s so wild about it, though, is that, a decade into parenting, the “towel-and-a-drawer” maxim feels both completely absurd and refreshingly wise.

A lot has changed since the seventies. When I was pregnant with my first child, my dad’s perspective on parenting preparation felt as silly as giving a colicky baby a finger of whiskey. First, the cost of living for families in this country has grown astronomically. My parents, for example, could afford a home in a diverse city on two therapist’s salaries. Now, the house I grew up in has been divided into luxury condos that I could only dream of affording. Childcare costs are real, and overwhelming: My husband and I calculated when our last child started public kindergarten that we had spent almost $200,000 on the first five years of care for our two children. Children need medical care, and medical care in this country is becoming more expensive and elusive by the day.

And, of course, there is the stuff. Fifty years ago, my dad, who I promise you did have a legit crib for my oldest sibling, had few options and little pressure to make baby-related purchases. Now, new parents like my brother and his partner are bombarded with ads and suggestions from other parents to buy high-tech strollers, specially designed tummy-time mats, and smart bottle-warmers. Even with older children, I find it difficult to turn down this constant thrum, the promise that if I just shell out a few more bucks, some aspect of life that I perhaps hadn’t even considered as a danger would be made easier for myself or my kids.

But what do our children, what do we really need??? Don’t get me wrong – the social and political child, so you’re not having to do that work during the first year of parenting.

“It allows you to prioritize, and then you’ll have a better sense of what you’re willing to let go of if you have to make trade offs as a new parent.” She also recommends worrying less about college savings and more about retirement, as you can borrow and scheme for the former but not the latter.

I would also add in that flexing your communal and collaborative muscles – getting to know your neighbors, sharing responsibilities with friends, getting comfortable asking for and offering help– will be enormously beneficial to you when you realize that even a teenaged babysitter can charge $25 an hour, and if you only need one car if you can arrange a daycare carpool. This, of course, takes work, but it is worth it. And it’s not only for your mental-health – childcare swaps, shared meals, and pooled resources can end up saving you money in the long run.

Who is ready to have a baby? No one. And also, mostly everyone. I’m sure you can find a towel and a drawer somewhere.

.

Sure, there are the essentials, but a lot of it just isn’t necessary.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

For decades, the United States had given shelter to Iranians fleeing their homeland, which has one of the harshest human rights records in the world. Iran persecutes women’s rights activists, political dissidents, journalists, lawyers, religious minorities, and members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community, among others.

In the past several years, there has been an increase in Iranian migrants arriving at the southern U.S. border and crossing illegally, including many who have claimed fear of persecution back home for their political and religious beliefs.

Hossein Noushabadi, the director general of parliamentary affairs in Iran’s foreign ministry, said on Tuesday that U.S. immigration authorities planned to deport 400 Iranians living in the United States back to Iran over the coming months.

“In the first phase, they decided to deport 120 Iranians who entered the U.S. illegally, mostly through Mexico,” he told Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards force.

Some who will be deported held U.S. residency, he said, adding that all of those being deported left Iran legally.

.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly last week, President Trump insisted that the United States would double down on efforts to deport masses of migrants. Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

This week’s meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices represented a notable departure from its prior practice of presenting and debating high-quality data on vaccine safety and risk-benefit analyses. Committee members, many of whom were hastily installed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., cited—without solid evidence—hypothetical risks of immunization with mRNA COVID vaccines, disregarding extensive studies showing the Food and Drug Administration–approved vaccines are safe and effective. The consequences of this meeting extend far beyond the specific votes the committee made today and could undermine confidence in vaccines and the U.S. medical establishment more broadly, some experts have noted. The story below has been updated with details of the discussion and votes regarding each vaccine considered.

The already tumultuous landscape of U.S. vaccine policy faces more turmoil in what’s anticipated to be a politically charged two-day meeting of a recently overhauled advisory panel to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is an independent panel of experts that has traditionally met three times a year to make science-based recommendations about who should receive certain vaccines. But this year the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine science and public health has upended the committee. Just yesterday former CDC director Susan Monarez, who led the agency for a month, testified to the Senate about her experience of being pushed out of office for not condoning attacks on vaccines unsupported by evidence. Most dramatically, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of health and human services and a veteran antivaccine activist, fired the panel’s membership, with the newest appointees announced only days ago.

On September 18 and 19, the committee is holding its second meeting of the year, and experts now worry that the new ACIP members will continue eroding public access to lifesaving vaccinations. Already, one in six parents in the U.S. reports delaying or skipping a vaccine for their child, according to a recent poll.

“I fear for the health of children in this country,” says Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “RFK, Jr.’s goal is to make vaccines less available, less affordable and more feared. That’s his goal, and he’s doing a great job of it.”

ACIP’s decisions are important because they dictate the price of lifesaving preventive care. The Affordable Care Act requires private insurance companies to cover ACIP-recommended vaccines at no cost; government-run insurance programs, including the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, which covers half of childhood vaccines administered nationwide, also base costs on the panel’s decisions.

At this week’s meeting, the newly reconstituted panel will discuss three vaccines: the combined measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine, the hepatitis B vaccine and this year’s updated COVID shots.

The meeting’s agenda is a departure from ACIP’s norm, says Edwin Asturias, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist at the University of Colorado, who joined ACIP in July 2024 and was dismissed during Kennedy’s overhaul of the committee earlier this year. “This is one of the shortest agendas that we have seen for a long time from ACIP,” Asturias says. “Typically, ACIP has a lot of things to look through because there’s a lot of vaccines that are advancing through different aspects of development, as well as new data being generated.” Meetings in 2024 each discussed at least eight different vaccines.

Asturias and other public health experts are particularly worried the meeting will institutionalize attacks on the childhood vaccine schedule—a carefully choreographed, evidence-based timeline of vaccines given to kids in their earliest years.

“The childhood immunization schedule has proven to be very effective at reducing a lot of diseases that cause a lot of pain, suffering, and death in children,” Asturias says.

The meeting will be livestreamed on both September 18 and September 19. Here’s what experts are keeping an eye on.

The Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella Vaccine

What Happened

Members voted 8-3 not to recommend the single combination MMRV vaccine before age four, removing the option for children younger than four years old to receive the shot for the first dose. Children younger than age four are recommended separate MMR and varicella vaccines.

.

Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________