Females with autoimmune diseases ‘less likely to be believed’ than males and face longer diagnostic delays. Really!

When gender bias is a prejudice!

Notice also this is an international study with less than 7000 participants (of which 91% were female), and it is based on self reporting.

"... Diagnosis can be challenging because many autoimmune diseases initially cause symptoms such as fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance or low mood, which are common in the general population. Symptoms can also affect multiple parts of the body and change over time. ..."

From the abstract:

"Background

Females have higher rates of autoimmune disease and reported misdiagnoses. Our study uses patient-reported diagnostic data to capture, and compare between sexes and diseases, elements of the diagnostic journey not routinely documented in medical records.

Methods

In this international cross-sectional study, an online survey was used to capture data on the time from symptom onset and number of clinician consultations before achieving the autoimmune diagnosis, and rates and types of reported misdiagnoses. These were then compared between males and females (self-reported biological sex). The survey was co-designed, pre-tested, and approved by patients, charities and clinicians. It was made available internationally through an online survey platform between Dec 7, 2024, and March 7, 2025.

Any individual aged 18 years or older reporting any autoimmune or rheumatic disease of likely inflammatory origin (e.g., polymyalgia rheumatica) confirmed in a clinical correspondence was eligible to participate.

Patient-reported measures included: time to diagnosis and number of healthcare visits from symptom onset, and types of perceived misdiagnoses. Pearson Chi-squared tests and Bayesian regression models were used to compare males and females. Results were adjusted for potential confounders. Firth’s penalised logistic regression model was used for disease group due to small numbers of males in some categories of misdiagnosis. ...

Findings

Of the 6607 participants with autoimmune diseases, most were female (91.2%), White (87.8%), and resided in the UK (69.7%). 

Females were significantly more likely than males to report longer delays to diagnosis from symptom onset, more visits to healthcare providers, and a higher proportion reported that their autoimmune disease had been attributed to psychiatric (43.3% vs. 32.7%; p < 0.001) and psychosomatic causes (33.9% vs. 21.5%; p < 0.001). While more males than females reported being misdiagnosed with another physical disease (47.6% vs. 43.5%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.131). Disease group was a significant predictor of perceived psychiatric and psychosomatic misdiagnoses with diseases with visible physical symptoms and/or more definitive biomarkers (e.g., Type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis) having lower rates of psychiatric/psychosomatic misdiagnoses. After adjusting for just disease group, females had significantly higher odds of reporting receiving mental health misdiagnoses (1.56, 95% CI 1.25–1.96; p < 0.001), and psychosomatic misdiagnoses (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.45–2.43; p < 0.001) than males. Following adjustment for age, disease group, continent, and household financial situation, females had significantly higher odds than males of psychiatric misdiagnoses (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.14–1.87; p = 0.003) and psychosomatic misdiagnoses (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.31–2.32; p < 0.001).

Interpretation

In our survey sample, females with autoimmune diseases reported more challenging diagnostic journeys than males.

Awareness of sex and disease differences in diagnostic experiences is essential for improving equality in care. The high number of reported psychiatric and psychosomatic misdiagnoses in both sexes may also reflect the challenges of interpreting presenting and evolving symptoms of autoimmunity. This is particularly relevant for primary care where most patients will initially present. This work is exploratory in nature and our findings should be interpreted cautiously. Future research is warranted into patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives on the causes of sex differences in diagnostic journeys and to design interventions to reduce diagnostic delays and psychiatric/psychosomatic misdiagnoses in autoimmune disease."

Females with autoimmune diseases ‘less likely to be believed’ than males and face longer diagnostic delays | University of Cambridge "Females with autoimmune diseases are significantly more likely than males to have their autoimmune disease misdiagnosed as a psychiatric or psychosomatic condition, according to a study of more than 6,600 patients."

Sex and disease differences in patients’ diagnostic experiences in autoimmune diseases: an international cross-sectional study (open access)

Anthropogenic Climate Change Stopped the current Ice Age by about 1960. Really!

Amazing stuff! Hard to believe! Humans stopped the ongoing ice age! What kind of science is climatology?

You may also propose The Beatles and Beatlemania did it! 

"Highlights

• Researchers found evidence that the last remnant of the Laurentide Ice Sheet began growing again about 2,000 years ago, potentially marking the start of a new glacial period.
• The Barnes Ice Cap continued expanding until around 1960, when rising temperatures caused it to retreat.
• By dating vegetation preserved beneath the ice, scientists reconstructed when the ice sheet shrank, began expanding again and eventually reversed course.
• The researchers argue that the first renewed growth of an ice sheet may mark the beginning of a glacial period, even thousands of years before continental ice sheets develop.

..."

From the editor's summary and abstract:

"Editor’s summary

Has anthropogenic warming prevented the next glacial cycle? Young et al. showed that it may have done just that ... They looked at the evolution of the Barnes Ice Cap on Baffin Island, Canada, the last remaining piece of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS), which once covered much of North America and was the largest of the Pleistocene ice sheets. After shrinking throughout much of the early- and mid-Holocene, the LIS began to grow again around 2000 years ago but then began shrinking once more around 1960. The authors attribute this reversal to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, evidence that humans caused the termination of the next glaciation.

Abstract

During interglaciations, the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS), which is the largest of the Pleistocene ice sheets, retreats to Arctic Canada, where it achieves a minimum configuration.

The reexpansion of the LIS following this minimum marks the start of the next glaciation.

Here, we show that the last remaining remnant of the most recent LIS, Barnes Ice Cap (Baffin Island, Canada), achieved its minimum interglacial dimensions after ~3.6 thousand years ago, before reexpanding ~2000 years ago, marking the onset of the next glaciation.

The new LIS reached maximum dimensions in ~1960 CE, after which anthropogenic summer warming resulted in a negative mass balance, ice margin recession, and the termination of the next glaciation.

The demise of the next glaciation, despite the ongoing decline in summer insolation, illustrates the influence of anomalous greenhouse gas forcing on climate."

Climate Change Stopped the Next Ice Age – State of the Planet

Late Holocene reexpansion of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (open access)

Fig. 1. The last remnant of the LIS.

Fig. 3. The Common Era.

Europe’s summer heat wave killed more than 50,000 people in urban areas. Really!

I have a strong suspicion this number is highly inflated! Just the fact that they only focus on urban areas is one strong hint!

Again, the AAAS gets caught spreading demagoguery instead of science!

This study is obviously not based on fact or hard data but on "probabilistic climate attribution"! Is it junk science? It certainly has the appearance!

And these alchemists/wizards also constructed "climate conditions"  "without human-caused warming"! 

50,000 deaths per year that is about 1% of total EU deaths of roughly 4.8 million per year.

From the abstract:

"The summer of 2026 was characterised by a series of extreme heatwaves across Western Europe, with both monthly and annual temperature records broken repeatedly across many countries from May onwards.

Several government agencies took the unprecedented step of issuing near-real-time estimates of the mortality associated with the most intense heat events, reflecting the severity of the threat to public health.

In this study we combine probabilistic climate attribution with city- and age-specific temperature–mortality relationships to estimate heat-related mortality in 854 European cities during the summer months (June-August) and compare with counterfactual climate conditions representing a world without human-caused warming.

We estimate 50,391 heat-related excess deaths across the 854 cities during the summer, with around two thirds of these attributable to anthropogenic climate change.

These results highlight the threat from human-caused warming and the need for rapid emissions reductions alongside preparation and adaptation measures."

Europe’s summer heat wave killed more than 50,000 people in urban areas | Science | AAAS

More than 50,000 heat-related deaths estimated in European urban areas during summer 2026 (original news release) "New modelling estimates climate change was responsible for around two-thirds of the deaths"

Heat-related urban mortality attributable to human-induced climate change in Europe in summer 2026 (open access)

Microdrugging only benefits women so they can focus better?

I have some doubts about this particular study! This is about preliminary, early research results.

How to distinguish placebo from microdosis?

Was the microdosis given to men the same as for women? Was it too small?

P.S. I am not familiar with the details of this study.

"Preliminary research" seems to be the operative term here.

"Could microdosing LSD help women focus?

Preliminary research suggests that the psychedelic drug LSD might help women focus for longer and respond faster to stimuli.

A double-blind randomized trial was presented at the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Congress last week.

In it, 48 participants were given either 15 micrograms of LSD four times over two weeks, or a placebo, and then set a series of cognitive tests. Women who received the microdose reacted 8% faster than those who had been given the placebo and experienced fewer attention lapses.

The microdose had little effect on the attentional capacity of male participants. The research group plans to conduct larger studies that explore other variables such as hormone levels and baseline cognition."

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Microdosing LSD shows some cognitive benefits — but only for women (only partial public access) "Different effects of low-dose psychedelics on sustained attention in women and men deserve further investigation."

More research needed into the effects of microdosing LSD (2019 news article from Maastricht University)

Study finds unhealthy air in gas-powered commercial kitchens. Really!

The war on fossil fuels has reached new heights or lows? This time it is pilot light emissions!

I would bet if commercial kitchen air was so unhealthy we would have already learned about it.

Shall we rate this article as junk science published by Stanford University?

"In brief

• Stanford researchers measured air pollutants and heat during service and overnight in 27 commercial kitchens across three states.
• The study found gas and propane kitchens exceeded health-based guidelines, while all-electric kitchens remained cooler and cleaner.
• Findings underscore the health implications of equipment choices for millions of U.S. restaurant workers, particularly cleaning crews and early-arriving staff exposed to pilot-light emissions [???].

..."

Study finds unhealthy air in gas-powered commercial kitchens | Stanford Report "Researchers recorded extreme heat and elevated nitrogen dioxide in restaurant kitchens using gas or propane appliances. The all-electric kitchens studied ran cooler and cleaner."

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill devastated deep-sea life—and it hasn’t recovered. Really!

Could it be possible that the animals just moved on to other areas? I believe, this was not investigated.

When scientists long for a "pristine environment"! Whatever that is or means for the inhabited planet Earth! Clearly indicates bias! Was the Earth pristine before the appearance of Homo sapiens?

The language used by the authors strongly suggest bias and that they knew the answer before they started their research!

Notice also the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an educated guess by these authors not verified fact!

"Like other oil spills, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed untold numbers of seabirds, shallow-water fish, and other sea life. Now, scientists report that the spill also likely caused major carnage at depth: A 13-year survey, begun the year after the spill, has discovered a steep, sustained decline in fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. ..."

From the significance and abstract:

"Significance

It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a pristine environment on Earth [???]. In a vertical sense, remoteness from human activity typically confers ecological integrity, be it high (mountains) or low (deep sea). The latter would also ostensibly benefit from the pollution-dilution effect afforded by its size; the deep-pelagic biome is larger than all other ecosystems combined.

Here, we show a severe decline in the abundance of deep-pelagic fishes, crustaceans, and cephalopods in an oceanic ecosystem.

Available evidence rules out natural phenomena [???] as likely drivers, suggesting a large-scale pollution event [???] and its associated mitigation measures most likely precipitated the declines. Events such as this, coupled with Allee effects, may result in long or potentially irreversible ecosystem shifts in Earth’s largest ecosystems.

Abstract

The deep-pelagic habitat of the Gulf of Mexico comprises 90.4% of its volume and houses an exceptionally diverse deep-pelagic animal community that provides numerous ecosystem services, including carbon cycling and prey provisioning for oceanic predators.

Here, we report sudden, severe, and persistent declines in the abundance of deep-pelagic fishes, crustaceans, and cephalopods that have persisted for over a decade.

Over a 3.5-y period, animal abundances declined by 60 to 85%, taxon depending. Particularly hard-hit were ecologically foundational taxa such as euphausiids and lanternfishes. The magnitude of population-level decline that occurred during this 3.5-y period was greater than any observed over a 60-y period in the California Current system, the only comparable dataset, making this the fastest and most severe faunal decline reported for Earth’s largest ecosystem type.

These declines were detected both via direct sampling and acoustic sensing, providing independent corroboration.

Genomic analyses indicate reductions in genetic diversity among dominant taxa, both a corroboration and a consequence of the decline. Furthermore, resource managers report that these trends parallel those of managed or protected Gulf species that are dependent on deep-pelagic prey, including endangered species (e.g., beaked whales, Rice’s whale).

No naturally occurring factors (e.g., temperature, oxygen, food supply) correlated with the observed declines, suggesting an anthropogenic proximate cause.

That the declines began shortly after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill points to that event as the most parsimonious explanation. These findings suggest that despite its immense size the deep-pelagic biome is vulnerable to human-induced disturbance and possesses limited resilience to facilitate recovery."

ScienceAdviser

Immense but not immutable: A sudden and sustained decline in deep-pelagic life in a large oceanic ecosystem

Fig. 5. Stations sampled between 2011 and 2023 in the Gulf of Mexico.

Symbol colors represent the time periods of sampling [blue = 2011 (before decline); red = 2015–2023 (during and after decline)]. Numbers within symbols indicate the number of research cruises conducted at that station. The 200-m, 500-m, 1,000-m, 2,000-m, and 3,000-m isobaths are indicated by continuous white lines. The Deepwater Horizon site is indicated by a star, Standard Station by a square.

Racial Promotion Gaps (at the US patent office). Really!

More junk science published by the American Economic Association (AEA) as I suspect!

Apparently, some economists can not resist to use race baiting!

The first author of this study, i.e. Deepak Hegde (Professor at New York University, Stern School of Business), has only a lifetime citation count of 3544. That is very low! Maybe this paper gets his citation count up a little bit.

"We study racial disparities in promotions in a setting in which promotions are formulaic: the US patent office. Using detailed administrative data that allow us to observe who is eligible for promotion when, we document that Black patent examiners experience delays in promotions they are entitled [???] to, slowing their climb to the top of the career ladder by a year and reducing career earnings by 2.5 percent. Institutional features rule out statistical discrimination with accurate priors. Slow promotions even under Black supervisors argue against taste-based animus. Instead, the patterns fit models of belief-based discrimination."

Racial Promotion Gaps - American Economic Association

How a decade of emissions intensified Europe’s heat waves. Really!

Most likely a piece of junk science (published by Stanford University)!

Just the fact that this research is entirely based on training a generative AI model is suspicious enough!

This claim of human emissions is also at odds with the fact that the atmosphere has become much cleaner in recent decades.

"In brief

• Researchers trained a generative AI model to predict how extreme heat waves in Europe could unfold under different global emissions levels.
• The team found more than 99-in-100 odds that human-caused emissions from the last decade made the deadly 2025 European heat wave more intense.
• The study is an advance in linking subsets of emissions to climate change damages, and emphasizes the need to prepare for intensifying extreme weather alongside global emissions reductions.

..."

From the abstract:

"Understanding the consequences of continued greenhouse-gas emissions requires determining whether recent emissions can be robustly linked to changes in extreme weather events. However, current approaches have a limited ability to quantify changes in extreme weather caused by small subsets of anthropogenic emissions, particularly for individual events.

To address these limitations, we train a generative machine-learning model to predict spatially-explicit changes in daily surface temperature at different levels of cumulative emissions, conditional on the event's observed meteorological conditions.

Using this approach, we find strong evidence (>95% probability) that the combined effects of anthropogenic emissions released since the 2015 UN Paris Agreement have increased the intensity of Europe's summer temperature extremes since 2021. Additionally, our results suggest >99% probability that regional-mean temperature during Europe's high-impact June 2025 heatwave would have been lower (median estimate of 0.34°C) if the same large-scale meteorological conditions had occurred under 2015 levels of cumulative emissions."

How a decade of emissions intensified Europe’s heat waves | Stanford Report "A new study finds emissions since 2015 made recent heat waves more intense, underscoring the need to prepare for even hotter conditions ahead."

Global Emissions Since the Paris Agreement Have Intensified Europe's Recent Heatwaves (open access)

About 30% of adults would conceal loved ones' cancer. Really!

I am not sure how realistic this scenario is. Why would the patient not learn of his/her condition directly from the doctor?

This study seems to be odd if not contrived. Junk science?

What is here is the effect of cultural or religious factors? E.g. Buddhism?

Notice the difference is less than 10 percentage points. What is e.g. the margin of error in this case?

"Around 30% of adults in Thailand reported that if they were informed that a loved one had been diagnosed with cancer, they wouldn’t tell that person. The main reason for withholding the diagnosis was that they believed that receiving such bad news could worsen symptoms and cause fear of pain or death. The study surveyed more than 600 people, of whom around 80% were female. Previous studies have revealed similar trends in China, India and Saudi Arabia."

From the abstract:

"This study aimed to examine intentions to know one’s own cancer diagnosis and prognosis and intentions to allow family members to know the information.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults without a history of cancer diagnosis. Data were collected using a questionnaire capturing participant characteristics, intentions to know cancer diagnosis and prognosis, and intentions to allow loved ones to know cancer diagnosis and prognosis. The proportion reporting each intention was estimated. Factors related to not allow loved ones to know cancer diagnosis and prognosis were examined using univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

Of 607, most participants were female (80.2%), with a mean age of 43.1 ± 14.7 years.

Intentions to know one’s own cancer-related information were consistently higher than intentions to allow loved ones to know the information: cancer diagnosis (79.9% vs. 70.5%), prognosis regarding cancer stage and chance of cure (80.7% vs. 72.0%), and end-of-life prognosis (77.1% vs. 67.1%).

Participants who did not wish to know their own cancer prognosis had significantly higher odds of intending to not allow their loved ones to know cancer diagnosis and prognostic information.

Future research should focus on developing and evaluating approaches to assess preferences for cancer-related information disclosure."

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Preferences regarding disclosure of cancer diagnosis and prognosis for self and family members: a cross-sectional study (open access)

National Academies of Sciences faces growing scrutiny as docs reveal deep climate-advocacy bias

No surprise! Too many scientists have subscribed to and are true believers of the climate change religion!

Better be a climate skeptic rather than a climate demagogue!

"A trove of thousands of documents include an email from Marcia McNutt, who was then-president of the National Academies of Sciences, asking to use funding to block the EPA from rescinding the endangerment finding, which she said was supported by “climate deniers.” ...

Now the organization is under pressure from the House Oversight Committee to provide documents it withheld as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations of bias, and 22 state attorneys general are calling for an investigation and possible suspension of its federal funding over allegations it's producing materials to help plaintiffs win climate lawsuits. ...

As [Rep. James Comer, R-Ky] was demanding the withheld documents last week, 22 state attorneys general sent a letter to Trump administration officials, also on Friday, calling for an investigation into NAS and possible suspension and debarment of federal funding stemming from the publication of an update to an influential science manual for judges, which included a chapter on climate science. ..."

National Academies of Sciences faces growing scrutiny as docs reveal deep climate-advocacy bias | Just The News

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky (official photo, Source)

Nearly half of the world’s farmers suffer unintentional, acute pesticide poisoning every year. Really!

Serious stuff, if confirmed! I have some serious doubts about this claim! My hunch is we are dealing here with junk journalism and junk science.

The study was reportedly commissioned by the NGO Pesticide Action Network?

Notice these poisoning numbers are based on estimates (extrapolation?) not hard data! From about 370,000 actually reported cases, they come up with over 400 million cases estimate!  This is a serious jump!

Notice they refer to farmers, but the hard data appears to be all people not just farmers! The abstract of the research article does not mention how many farmers were actually poisoned!

Notice also the use of "non fetal" in this context! How serious were these poisonings?

Notice the research article is primarily a meta study of research articles.

"... with southern Asia, southeast Asia, and East Africa most affected, finds a study published yesterday in Frontiers in Public Health, which also estimated 11,000 annual deaths from pesticide poisoning; the authors say immediate action is required to reduce pesticide use, which doubled from 1990 to 2023. ..."

"... The overall highest national incidence of poisoning was in Burkina Faso in west Africa, where nearly 84% of farmers and farm workers were reported to have experienced poisoning. ..."

From the abstract:

"Background: 

Human poisoning by pesticides has long been seen as a severe public health problem. 

As early as 1990, a task force of the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that about one million unintentional pesticide poisonings occur annually, leading to approximately 20,000 deaths.

In 2020, a systematic review found that about 385 million cases of unintentional, acute pesticide poisoning (UAPP) were occurring every year.

Our aim is to update the annual global estimate of UAPP, based on a systematic review of available data.

Methods:

We updated the existing systematic review of the scientific literature to include the period from 2006 to 2023 supplemented by mortality data from WHO.

We extracted data from publications and the WHO Mortality Database, then performed country-wise synopses, and arrived at annual numbers of national UAPP. World-wide UAPP was estimated based on national figures and population data for worldwide regions. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the effects of different study designs on the global estimate.

Results:

In total 139 countries were covered, including 62 countries covered by 214 articles from 2006 to 2023, and an additional 77 countries covered by data from the WHO Mortality Database. 

Approximately 369,632 annual cases of UAPP were reported by the extracted publications, resulting from 9,182 fatalities and 360,450 non-fatal cases.

On this basis, we estimate that about 402 to 433 million cases of UAPP occur annually worldwide, including around 11,000 fatalities.

Based on a worldwide farming population of approximately 934 million, this means that an estimated 46% of farmers are being poisoned by pesticides every year.

The greatest estimated number of non-fatal UAPP cases is in southern Asia, followed by south-eastern Asia and east Africa.

Conclusion:

Along with other estimates, robust evidence is presented that acute pesticide poisoning is an ongoing major global public health challenge.

There is an urgent need to recognize the high burden of non-fatal UAPP, particularly on farmers and farmworkers. The implementation of the recommendation by the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), to phase out highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) could significantly reduce the burden of UAPP."

Global Health NOW: A Radically Reshaped Global Health Funding Paradigm; and West Nile Surges Across Southern Europe

Almost half of world’s farmers poisoned by pesticides every year, experts find "Study reveals that pesticide poisoning kills 11,000 people each year, with India accounting for nearly 60% of fatalities"

Worldwide unintentional acute pesticide poisonings: reassessing the occupational and non-occupational burden (open access)

Notice that French language articles were not included and medical/clinical outcomes of these poisonings.

Fig. 2 Number (x 1,000) of non-fatal untentional pesticide poisonings in UN Regions (total = 433 million).

Universal Health Coverage Could Save $1 Trillion and 114,000 Lives Every Year | Yale School of Public Health. Really!

When an elite university has delusions of grandeur! Or is it simply old fashioned socialism or a preference for government run healthcare? What about junk science?

These wannabe socialists have never heard of or seen the e.g. long waiting lines or chronic shortages in historic, socialist countries!

Why not introduce more free market competition into the US and other countries' healthcare systems! Why not shorten intellectual property protections? Why not let nurses do more doctor work? Why not reduce burdensome regulations and much more! However, e.g. import of re-import of government price controlled drugs from other countries is not one of them! 

"A single-payer universal health care system could cover every American, save more than 100,000 lives a year, and still cost $1 trillion less than the system it would replace, according to a new preprint study led by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health. ...

The model identified five major sources of savings: lower pharmaceutical prices, Medicare-level payments to providers, reduced administrative overhead, less fraudulent billing, and fewer avoidable emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

Even under more conservative assumptions about drug prices and fraud reduction, the researchers projected that the savings would reach at least $663 billion a year. Both figures account for an estimated $304 billion in additional spending to meet unmet medical needs, reimburse care that now goes unpaid, and provide universal dental coverage. ..."

From the abstract:

"The US spends more on health care than any other nation, yet tens of millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured, and coverage retractions enacted in 2025 are widening these gaps.

The misalignment between the for-profit insurance architecture and optimal patient care, together with the inefficiencies of a fragmented system, contributes to both unnecessary costs and preventable mortality.

We update our previous analyses with the most recent data to project the economic benefits and the number of lives saved that would be achieved by single-payer universal coverage, as proposed in the Medicare for All Act.

We estimate that such a system would reduce national health expenditure by $1,041 billion annually. Sources of savings include reductions in administrative overhead, pharmaceutical prices, fraudulent billing, and avoidable emergency care.

Combined with the reversal of recent retractions, universal coverage would save over 114,000 lives annually."

Universal Health Coverage Could Save $1 Trillion and 114,000 Lives Every Year, Yale Study Projects | Yale School of Public Health

Projected economic gains and lives saved under universal healthcare in the United States (preprint, open access)

Credits: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Global Health NOW

56 million years ago fossil forest during the PETM offers chilling window into climate change future. Really!

This demagoguery and alarmism and hysteria was again spread quickly by many of the usual climate change religion suspects (like e.g. the AAAS)!

When medieval superstition trumps science!

Some of this research seems to be speculative, e.g. "possible tree mortality" and other vague terms.

The climate demagogues try hard to link a 56 million years ago event to today's warming by stressing the "anthropogenic" cause of higher CO2 in the atmosphere. Let's not forget CO2 is only a minute trace gas in our time!

Notice also this study appears to be based on computer modeling not on hard facts. Has any third party validated these computer model scenarios? Computer models and their 100 year forecasts also play a major role in the propaganda of the global warming hoax/climate change religion. 

Very strange, notice these climate demagogues don't tell what the approximate CO2 and methane concentration in the atmosphere was 56 million years ago. Either they don't know or it was so much higher than today that they better not disclose it or otherwise their demagoguery would be exposed immediately! What if it was not higher CO2 that caused the warming period 56 million years ago?

"Palaeontologists have reconstructed a 56-million-year-old forest, offering a sobering view of what happens in a period of rapid warming due to rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) came at the end of the Palaeocene epoch. Over this period, global average temperatures rose by 5–8°C over just a few thousand years.

This warming was triggered by a massive, rapid release of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere and oceans primarily through volcanic activity which would have been intensified through feedback loops, including melting permafrost and large-scale wildfires.

Research published in the journal Science shows how the PETM impacted on an ancient forest fossilised in rocks in US state Wyoming and vegetation globally.

The team found reduced canopy cover and plant species migrating toward the poles. ..."

"“We are putting CO₂ into the atmosphere faster than any known natural process,” [???] says paleobotanist Dr. Regan Dunn, Assistant Deputy Director and Associate Curator of the Samuel Oschin Global Center for Ice Age Research at La Brea Tar Pits and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. “The Earth has never experienced a carbon release at the pace we're creating today." ..."

"... This sudden warming event, called the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), was one of the most notable climatic upheavals in Earth’s history. The volume of CO2 released [??? so how much was released?] during that period is thought [???] to be roughly equivalent to the total human emissions that would [???] be released by the end of the twenty-first century under a pessimistic scenario. The ancient surge of CO2 raised global average temperatures by between 5 and 9 °C, changing the climate for more than 150,000 years. ..."

"... Understanding how forest structure changed during the PETM is really important, because it tells us about how plant growth, biomass and productivity are affected by adding a lot of carbon dioxide [??? how much?] to the atmosphere,” Currano [Ellen Currano, senior author of the study] says. “It turns out that too much carbon dioxide is a bad thing for forests, because the accompanying warming and drying stresses the trees and kills many of them.” ..."

From the editor's summary and abstract (Notice, the abstract does not mention the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere):

"Editor’s summary

Predicting the effects of climate change depends on complex feedbacks between climate and vegetation. Although elevated carbon dioxide from anthropogenic emissions could make photosynthesis more efficient, leading to greater vegetation productivity and carbon storage, coincident warming and drought can reduce primary productivity. Dunn et al. examined how these factors interacted to influence forest productivity in another period with elevated carbon dioxide and 5° to 9°C of global warming, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred about 56 million years ago. Based on an analysis of leaf cuticles from fossils, the researchers found that there was elevated canopy opening early in this period, possibly due to tree mortality, which occurred along with major vegetation and hydrological changes. ...

Abstract

Uncertainty remains regarding the impact of rapid anthropogenic [???] warming on forest ecosystem structure, biodiversity, and function.

As an analog [???], we reconstruct forest canopy density and compositional change in Wyoming, USA, through the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), an interval of abrupt carbon increase and warming ~56 million years ago. We develop a proxy to quantify leaf area index and assess shifts in floral composition using palynomorphs.

Forest canopies opened abruptly at onset of PETM warming, landscape erosion increased, and vegetation shifted from broad-leaved angiosperm to fern- and palm-dominated ecosystems.

When combined with regional data, these patterns suggest that continental-scale changes in plant communities cause landscape destabilization. These shifts also have implications for multimillennial-scale hydrologic and carbon cycle feedbacks in the climate system."

Fossil forest offers chilling window into climate change future | News | ConnectSci

Ancient global warming drove forest canopy decline and ecosystem restructuring "A widespread dieback of forests due to climate change 56 million years ago has parallels with today [???]."

Ancient rise in CO2 was catastrophic for forests: what that means for today’s plants

Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum Carbon Release Study "A Tar Pits researcher reconstructed forests of 56 million years ago—with chilling parallels for our warming planet: climate change led to a widespread browning of Earth's landscapes—against a backdrop of elevated atmospheric CO₂, global warming, and reduced rainfall triggered by volcanically driven carbon release—and trees are at the root of these drastic changes."

UW’s [University of Wyoming] Currano Helps Reconstruct Ancient Wyoming Forest Canopy (original news release)

Forest canopy decline under elevated CO2 during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (no public access)

(Left) Fisheye view of a forest canopy above a corresponding estimate of forest structure. (Top Right) Leaf cuticle collected from modern forest soil. (Bottom Right), Fossilised leaf cuticle from the Hanna Basin.

Satellite data shows a browning trend across the planet since around the turn of the century. [Demagogues like to use shocking photos like this]

Older People Face Higher Risks From a Warming World. Really!

How serious is this issue? How much is alarmism and hysteria? How easy is it to protect older individuals from heat exposure (e.g. staying more indoors etc.)?

A strong hint that this is more alarmism and hysteria than science is the use of junk climate model projections in this study to come up with "intolerable heat".

Notice here the switch again from "climate change" to global warming. Whenever it is convenient for propaganda?

Notice here also they provide only a relative temperature range and not an absolute temperature range when older individuals may suffer more! This may indicate e.g. that perhaps many older individuals are not that much affected by warmer outdoor temperatures.

The methodology may also be seriously flawed as they compare Little Ice Age temperatures with current warming period temperatures instead of e.g. Medieval Warming period temperatures! Plus they seem to have used junk climate model projections.

"Older people may face serious health risks from heat at much lower temperatures than previously understood, per new research from Stanford University.

Most previous studies applied heat limits for healthy young adults to all age groups—overlooking the vulnerability of older people.

The new research ... found that people ages 60 and up could “no longer maintain a stable core temperature”—the point at which the body’s biological cooling mechanisms become overwhelmed––at temps roughly 4.7–7.5 degrees Celsius and (40.46–45.5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than young adults.

After accounting for ways that aging reduces heat tolerance, the number of people facing repeated, “uncompensable” heat exposure—a combination of heat and physical factors—as climates warm is two-to-eight-times higher than earlier studies estimated using young-adult thresholds for all ages.

Suggested solutions: Researchers say there is a need for targeted, age-specific action plans and warning systems to protect older people, ..."

"In short:

A new global study suggests older people may face serious health risks from heat at much lower temperatures than previously understood.

The study found the temperature at which people age 60 and older could "no longer maintain a stable core temperature" was roughly 4.7–7.5 degrees Celsius lower than for young adults. ..."

From the abstract:

"Background

In a warming world, understanding where, when, and to what extent human heat tolerance limits will be breached has become increasingly important.

Previous projections applied heat limits for healthy young adults to all age groups, overlooking greater vulnerability in older ages.

With global ageing, this oversight could seriously underestimate future heat risks. In this study, we aimed to examine the extent to which accounting for age-specific heat tolerance alters global projections of heat limit exceedances.

Methods

We integrated experimentally derived heat limits for young (18–39 years), middle-aged (40–59 years), and older adults (≥60 years) with climate projections [???] and age-stratified population projections to assess where and to what extent these limits could be breached across age groups under 1–4°C of global warming above preindustrial levels.

The climate projections [???] include bias-corrected projections of dry-bulb temperature and wet-bulb temperature from 14 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 climate models under the shared socioeconomic pathway 5-8·5 scenario. We also highlighted countries with high exposure risk and low adaptive capacity.

Findings

More widespread and imminent breaches of heat limits were estimated among older adult populations than among other populations.

Older adults faced more frequent and spatially extensive exceedances under the 1·5°C global warming scenario [???] relative to the preindustrial period than young adults did under 4°C. Using age-specific thresholds more than doubled the global population having 180 h or more of exceedance annually as compared with previous estimates.

Older adults in south Asia and the Persian Gulf could face sustained, day-and-night exposure for three consecutive months at 3°C or more warming.

We also identified 13 countries under 3°C global warming above the preindustrial period where poverty rates exceed 50% and either at least 10 million older adults or at least 80% of the older adult population experiences 180 h or more of heat limit exceedance annually.

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Niger exceed both the absolute (10 million older adults) and proportional (80% of older adults) exposure thresholds.

Interpretation

Our results suggest accounting for age stratified vulnerability, intolerable heat [???] will be experienced at much larger scales and for longer durations, affecting far more people than previously estimated.

By identifying who and where people are exposed, our findings can inform targeted heat action plans and guide resource allocation and response planning. ..."

Global Health NOW: Older People Face Higher Risk From Warming World; and California’s Deadly Silicosis Surge

People over 60 face heat exposure danger at lower temperatures, study suggests

When Heat Outpaces the Human Body: A Warming, Aging World at Risk "As the climate warms, understanding where, when, and to what extent human heat tolerance limits will be breached has become increasingly important—particularly for the elderly."

Exceeding human heat tolerance in a warming, ageing world: a global projection modelling study (open access)

Figure 1 Spatial distribution of UHS [uncompensable heat stress] frequency across age groups and warming levels

Slavery linked to mortality gap between Black and white Americans today. Really!

Update of 8/17/2026: Of course, the lefty Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health would pick up this junk science in a news article! "Historical U.S. slavery has been linked to contemporary health disparities and the mortality gap between Black and white Americans today"

This article reeks of junk journalism and junk science! More horrible demagoguery spread by the AAAS and this time also by the National Academy of Sciences! Shame on them!

The term "racial disparities" is ideological and racist! A sign of junk science! This article published in the PNAS seems to be pure ideological junk science! It should be retracted!

What about individual lifestyle of black Americans v. white Americans with similar lifestyles or black Americans who moved away from formerly slave holding counties and so on! What about the age structure between white and black Americans in those counties?

Caveat: I did not read the article.

"... researchers studying racial health disparities in the United States today. A new study finds slavery still casts a long shadow on the country’s well-being, worsening the health outcomes for Black people in certain locations more than 150 years after abolition. ..."

From the significance and abstract:

"Significance

Black–White mortality disparities remain a persistent form of inequality in the United States. This study provides evidence that the proportion of enslaved people across U.S. counties in 1860 [???] predicts contemporary Black–White mortality disparities.

Counties with greater reliance on slavery in 1860 [???] have higher contemporary mortality rates for Black Americans but lower rates for White Americans. The association persists in analyses designed to address confounding from unobserved historical factors and in tests of alternative explanations. Structural inequalities [???] in segregation, economic conditions, and educational access emerge as key pathways linking historical slavery to contemporary mortality disparities [???]. This work underscores the need for interventions [???] that address not only proximal determinants but also the historical and structural foundations, of racial health disparities.

Abstract

We tested whether contemporary Black–White mortality disparities in the United States may be rooted in the historical legacy of slavery and perpetuated through structural inequalities.

Linking county-level data on the proportion of enslaved people in 1860 with structural inequality indicators from 1990 to 2000 and mortality outcomes from 2010 to 2020, we find that historical slavery is robustly associated with contemporary racial mortality gaps.

Our model estimates ~22 additional deaths per 100,000 among Black Americans relative to White Americans for every 10% increase in the 1860 enslaved population.

Path analysis models showed that segregation, economic inequality, and racial disparities in poverty and education statistically mediated this effect.

We test the plausibility of a causal pathway using an instrumental variable analysis and explore the robustness of our theoretical model in multiple supplemental analyses.

Our analyses held even after controlling for a comprehensive suite of historical and contemporary covariates.

These findings are consistent with a model wherein slavery’s legacy continues to shape present-day Black–White racial health disparities via enduring structural inequities."

Slavery linked to mortality gap between Black and white Americans today | Science | AAAS

Historical slavery predicts contemporary disparities in mortality between Black and White Americans (open access)

What a garbage Chart (reminds of the infamous Hockey Stick chart)!

Fig 1 Figure displays the estimated relationship between the proportion of enslaved population in 1860 and Black and White mortality rates (2010–2020). 

No bosses, no problem! Pre-Hispanic farmers built giant water system bottom-up in Colombia. Really!

Amazing stuff! However, the claims about no top-down government etc. are most likely exaggerations or speculative!

When wishful thinking enters the minds of researchers! Dreams/bias of a cooperative collective!

It would be great if it can be confirmed that these fields and water management system were achieved through voluntarily cooperation, but this research is too speculative!

"The pre-Hispanic field systems of La Mojana in the Colombian Caribbean are so vast you can see them from a plane at high altitude. Their canals and raised fields – in use from the first centuries BC until the 11th century AD – cover an astonishing 500,000 hectares, roughly the same size as the Grand Canyon National Park, or three times the size of London. ...

archaeological team argues that the work was most likely locally-led, cooperative, and much faster than previously assumed. ...

Our study is the first to show that these sustainable solutions can be organised locally and collectively. Local people may need resources from the state but not necessarily state intervention.” ..."

From the abstract (emphasis added):

"Pre-Hispanic societies of the Colombian Caribbean lowlands built raised field systems spanning over 500,000 hectares. Their re-adoption may offer a potential solution to modern-day water control in the region. Traditionally interpreted as evidence of large-scale projects requiring centralised planning and coordination, the labour organisation behind their construction is nevertheless not fully understood.

To leverage archaeological knowledge in assessing potential for their re-adoption, we examine the function and labour input requirements of pre-Hispanic canal-ridge systems within a 500-hectare study area.

Conservative estimates indicate the entire system could have been built by local inhabitants in a single dry season.

Maintenance requirements were also modest, with full restoration once a generation requiring a few days annual labour.

We conclude that the sheer scale [???] of these systems cannot be taken as evidence of top-down control, and highlight the potential of low-cost, cooperative, sustainable approaches to water and land management in the Colombian Caribbean."

No bosses, no problem! Pre-Hispanic farmers built giant water system bottom-up, archaeologists reveal | University of Cambridge "Communities living in Colombia thousands of years ago achieved an engineering wonder of the world based on cooperation among family groups without top-down government, a new study shows. Archaeologists argue that policymakers in Colombia should now adopt a similar strategy to solve the country’s current water management crisis."

Collective labour and sustainability of pre-Hispanic field systems in La Mojana (open access)

Fig. 1: Areas of human occupation in La Mojana Region in Colombia.

Fig. 2: Aerial photograph of hydraulic systems in La Mojana, composed of canals and ridges (also known as camellones).

When should you switch to an EV? Right now! Really!

More horrible climate demagoguery coming from the AAAS! This is written by a senior editor of Science!

Reminder: So called greenhouse gases (a propaganda term) gases are trace gases!

What is perhaps the most significant cause of climate change/global warming: Varying solar activity and cycles!

"Over the last 3,000 years, Earth experienced two major notable ... warm periods—the Roman Warm Period (roughly 1st to 3rd centuries AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 950 to 1250 AD)" (Google Search)

This research is most likely ideologically driven junk science! It was written to give some politicians pseudo science arguments for government subsidies and government paternalism!

This pamphlet of a journal article was written by only two authors!

"When should you switch to an EV? Right now!

H. Jesse Smith, Senior Editor, Science

Campbell, J. E. & Geyer, R. The climate benefits of retiring a fully operational internal combustion engine vehicle. Science 393, 591–595 (2026). 10.1126.science.adv5441

 

Internal combustion engine vehicles are a major source of carbon dioxide emissions and therefore there has been a strong push to increase the proportion of electric vehicles (EV) in the transportation sector.

Operating an EV [???] typically produces much less CO2 per-mile than driving a “gas-guzzler,” but knowing when to replace a combustion vehicle with an EV in order to minimize lifetime CO2 production is complicated by the fact that considerable emissions are produced in the manufacturing of a vehicle, before it ever hits the road.

An accurate assessment also must consider emissions from the activities that support manufacturing, such as mining for component materials, and end-of-life management requirements like disposal or recycling.

In order to answer the “When is the best time to switch?” question, at least from the greenhouse gas perspective [???], Campbell and Geyer employed a wide range of scenarios. Ultimately, they found that retiring even a brand-new combustion-driven car for an EV can result in lower total CO2 emissions. [???] ..."

From the editor's summary and abstract:

"Editor’s summary

Electric vehicles (EVs) produce much lower emissions of greenhouse gases than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), but when in the life cycle of an ICEV does it make sense to replace it with an EV? Campbell and Geyer conducted life-cycle analyses of different vehicle types and concluded that the energy impact benefits from swapping an EV for an ICEV begin to accrue as early as the first day of the life of the ICEV [???], and that replacement early in the life cycle consistently provides reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Financial considerations will also affect when people choose to make the replacement, of course, but from the perspective of emissions, it is almost never too soon to switch. ...

Abstract

Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles represent the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions for most US households. Although battery electric vehicles (BEVs) considerably reduce use-phase emissions, the transition poses a fundamental life cycle optimization challenge:

Is there a net climate benefit to retiring a functional ICE vehicle before its end of life? Retiring a functioning ICE vehicle incurs a fundamental trade-off between BEV manufacturing emissions and decreased vehicle operation emissions.

In this study, we evaluated this trade-off across a comprehensive range of retirement scenarios and found that scrappage-and-replacement yields consistent emissions reductions across most contexts, including the retirement of new ICE vehicles. Although scrapping a functional asset remains economically prohibitive under current market conditions, these results demonstrate a major mitigation potential for policy interventions [???], such as enhanced scrappage subsidies, to address the emissions of an increasingly durable ICE fleet."

ScienceAdviser

Replacing gas-powered cars, even if they’re new, can cut future emissions

The climate benefits of retiring a fully operational internal combustion engine vehicle (open access)

The permafrost link between methane emissions and climate change. Really!

More of the horrible climate demagoguery and indoctrination by the AAAS! Again junk science and junk journalism?

Remember CO2 and methane are trace gases in the atmosphere measured in few hundred (CO2) or even few (methane) parts per million!

I bet there also arsonists in Siberia! Or is Putin the Terrible doing some deforestation in Siberia so the megalomaniac can finally conquer the rest of the world? 😊

"Northern hemispheric permafrost stores twice as much carbon as is found in the atmosphere. As permafrost thaws due to climate warming, it becomes a potential source of methane emissions caused by microbial decomposition of soil organic carbon in wetlands, which could cause further warming. Zhu et al. report that methane emissions in Siberia have increased at a rate of around 5% per year since 2010 due to a combination of fires and permafrost melting. This source of methane is projected to become more important as climate continues to warm."

From abstract:

"The northern permafrost region, which stores double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, is vulnerable to accelerated warming.

Methane emissions from thawing permafrost may eventually result in a climate-carbon feedback.

Our analysis of atmospheric methane data shows that Siberian growing-season methane emissions have increased by 12.0 ± 1.9 teragrams of methane (TgCH4) (5% per year) over the period 2010–2023.

We reveal contrasting Siberian hydrological trends linked to high-pressure systems and distinct air-sea-land interactions.

Warmer, drier conditions over eastern Siberia enhance fire-related emissions (0.7 ± 0.1 TgCH4 year−2), and wetter conditions over western Siberia promote wetland-related emissions (0.4 ± 0.1 TgCH4 year−2).

Weakly nonlinear relationships between temperature maxima and emissions suggest that by 2050 [???], higher Siberian emissions could offset about 20% of the global methane reduction required for climate targets [???], with eastern Siberia dominating the projected increase."

In Science Journals | Science

Decadal doubling of Siberian methane emissions due to warming-induced fires and methanogenesis (no public access)