By Daniel Pastula, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

The measles outbreak that started in Texas in late January continues to grow. As of March 18, 2025, confirmed cases in the outbreak, which now spans Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma, reached 321, surpassing the number of confirmed cases recorded for all of the U.S. in 2024. The vast majority of cases are in people who are not vaccinated. Meanwhile, a lack of clarity from health authorities is leaving people with questions about whether they need to get revaccinated.

In a Q&A with The Conversation U.S., Daniel Pastula, a neurologist and medical epidemiologist from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Colorado School of Public Health, explained how and when you should take action.

Should adults get another shot of the measles vaccine?

The measles vaccine, which first became available in the U.S. in 1963, contains a live but significantly weakened strain of the measles virus. This modified strain is too weak to cause measles, but it is similar enough to the wild type measles virus to train the immune system to recognize it. Most people who have received the live measles vaccine won’t need an additional shot now, but here is what you need to know:

People born before 1957 are presumed to have lifelong immunity because measles was so contagious that almost everyone contracted it before age 15. Unless there are special circumstances, they probably don’t need a vaccine now.

Most people born after 1957 would have received the shot as children, so they should be set for life. Physicians and public health experts don’t recommend most people in this group get a second measles shot, though there are exceptions.

In 1989, a limited outbreak of measles occurred among vaccinated school children. In response, the recommendations changed from one dose of the live measles vaccine to two doses for children. People fully vaccinated as children after that year do not need any additional doses.

Exceptions to these guidelines

There are two special circumstances where the previous recommendations may not hold.

First, if you were vaccinated between 1963 and 1967, one of the measles vaccines available at the time consisted of just proteins from the virus rather than a live, weakened version of it. Researchers soon realized this inactivated, or “killed,” vaccine was less effective and didn’t provide long-term immunity. Unless you know for certain you received the live vaccine, physicians and public health experts recommend that people vaccinated during those years get one dose of the live vaccine at some point.

Second, if you fall into a high-risk group – for example, if you are a health care provider, are traveling internationally or attending college, physicians and public health experts generally recommend getting a second dose if you have only had one.

For most adults without such risk factors, physicians and public health experts do not routinely recommend a second dose if you have previously received one dose of a live measles vaccine. If you have questions or concerns about your situation, make sure to ask your health care provider.

Except in very rare circumstances, there is no recommendation for a third dose of the measles vaccine.

Can you find out whether you’ve been vaccinated?

You might be able to! It’s worth checking. States actually keep vaccine records specifically for this reason, where you can look up your vaccine records or that of your kids. Your high school or college may still have your records, and so might your pediatrician’s office.

Should you get your antibody levels checked?

For most people, probably not.

A titer test checks the level of antibodies in your blood, and some people are asking their doctor to check their titers to determine whether they are still immune to measles. The problem is, the level of antibodies in your blood does not necessarily reflect your level of immunity. That’s because antibodies are just one part of your immune system’s infection-fighting force. Having a low level of antibodies does not necessarily mean your immunity has waned.

Other crucial elements of your immune response include B cells, T cells and other immune cells, but a titer test does not show their capabilities. For example, memory B cells might not currently be making antibodies against the virus but are primed to quickly do so the next time they see it. This is why antibody and titer tests should be used only in specific cases, in consultation with your doctor.

One example of when an antibody test may be warranted is if you are a health care provider born before 1957 and you want to make sure you don’t need another dose of the vaccine. You would use a test to see whether you have measles antibodies. But in this case you would be looking for a yes or no answer; the total amount of antibodies may not be very informative.

Is natural immunity better than vaccine-induced immunity?

Natural immunity – that is, the immunity you get after having measles – is effective. However, the downside is that natural infection with a wild virus is very risky. Before 1963, measles caused close to 50,000 hospitalizations and about 500 deaths each year in the United States, usually in children. It also caused over 1,000 cases of severe brain inflammation every year and carried several other long-term risks, such as permanent hearing loss or the wipe out of immunity to other diseases.

The point of vaccines is to create immunity without the risks of severe infection. It is basically a dress rehearsal for the real thing. The immunity from a vaccine is effectively the same immunity you get from having measles itself – but vastly safer than encountering the wild virus unprotected. One dose is 93% effective at preventing measles and two doses are 97% effective, and any breakthrough cases are likely to be much milder than a full-blown case of measles.

Can the vaccine cause measles?

No, the measles vaccine cannot cause measles because it contains a significantly weakened strain that has limited ability to infect and damage cells.

Some have claimed without evidence that the current outbreak in Texas was caused by the measles vaccine.

As part of the outbreak investigation, however, CDC and the Texas Department of State Health Services analyzed the genome of the virus causing the current outbreak and identified it as a wild measles virus. Researchers classify measles virus strains based on their genetic characteristics, or genotypes. They identified the outbreak virus as wild type genotype D8, and not the weakened measles vaccine strain, which is genotype A.

What are the risks of the vaccine?

That is a very reasonable question. Because the measles vaccine is a live, weakened virus strain, it can cause a mild, measles-like syndrome. For example, some people might have a slight fever, a rash, or some slight joint pain. These symptoms generally go away in a day or two, and most people don’t experience them. But the vaccine cannot cause measles itself, as it does not contain the wild measles virus.

In extremely rare cases, people can experience more significant reactions to the measles vaccine. It is important to remember that every single medical or health intervention carries risks – and that includes all medications and over-the-counter supplements. According to all available evidence, however, comparing the potential benefits against potential risks reveals that the risks of a signficant reaction to the vaccine are much lower than the risks of severe outcomes from measles itself.

Being vaccinated not only protects you and your family, but it also protects vulnerable people in the community, such as infants, cancer patients and pregnant women, who cannot be vaccinated themselves.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Pastula, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Read more:

• Texas records first US measles death in 10 years – a medical epidemiologist explains how to protect yourself and your community from this deadly, preventable disease
• Unverified reports of vaccine side effects in VAERS aren’t the smoking guns portrayed by right-wing media outlets – they can offer insight into vaccine hesitancy
• Vaccines and values: When you’re having a tough conversation about medicine, don’t just pile on evidence − listen to someone’s ‘moral foundations’

Daniel Pastula does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Should you get an additional shot of the measles vaccine? Hailshadow via Gett Images

The post Measles outbreak drives debate over revaccination for adults in US appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Ben Zdencanovic, University of California, Los Angeles

The Medicaid system has emerged as an early target of the Trump administration’s campaign to slash federal spending. A joint federal and state program, Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for more than 72 million people, including low-income Americans and their children and people with disabilities. It also helps foot the bill for long-term care for older people.

In late February 2025, House Republicans advanced a budget proposal that would potentially cut US$880 billion from Medicaid over 10 years. President Donald Trump has backed that House budget despite repeatedly vowing on the campaign trail and during his team’s transition that Medicaid cuts were off the table.

Medicaid covers one-fifth of all Americans at an annual cost that coincidentally also totals about $880 billion, $600 billion of which is funded by the federal government. Economists and public health experts have argued that big Medicaid cuts would lead to fewer Americans getting the health care they need and further strain the low-income families’ finances.

As a historian of social policy, I recently led a team that produced the first comprehensive historical overview of Medi-Cal, California’s statewide Medicaid system. Like the broader Medicaid program, Medi-Cal emerged as a compromise after Democrats failed to achieve their goal of establishing universal health care in the 1930s and 1940s.

Instead, the United States developed its current fragmented health care system, with employer-provided health insurance covering most working-age adults, Medicare covering older Americans, and Medicaid as a safety net for at least some of those left out.

Health care reformers vs. the AMA

Medicaid’s history officially began in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the system into law, along with Medicare. But the seeds for this program were planted in the 1930s and 1940s. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration was implementing its New Deal agenda in the 1930s, many of his advisers hoped to include a national health insurance system as part of the planned Social Security program.

Those efforts failed after a heated debate. The 1935 Social Security Act created the old-age and unemployment insurance systems we have today, with no provisions for health care coverage.

Nevertheless, during and after World War II, liberals and labor unions backed a bill that would have added a health insurance program into Social Security.

Harry Truman assumed the presidency after Roosevelt’s death in 1945. He enthusiastically embraced that legislation, which evolved into the “Truman Plan.” The American Medical Association, a trade group representing most of the nation’s doctors, feared heightened regulation and government control over the medical profession. It lobbied against any form of public health insurance.

During the late 1940s, the AMA poured millions of dollars into a political advertising campaign to defeat Truman’s plan. Instead of mandatory government health insurance, the AMA supported voluntary, private health insurance plans. Private plans such as those offered by Kaiser Permanente had become increasingly popular in the 1940s in the absence of a universal system. Labor unions began to demand them in collective bargaining agreements.

The AMA insisted that these private, employer-provided plans were the “American way,” as opposed to the “compulsion” of a health insurance system operated by the federal government. They referred to universal health care as “socialized medicine” in widely distributed radio commercials and print ads.

In the anticommunist climate of the late 1940s, these tactics proved highly successful at eroding public support for government-provided health care. Efforts to create a system that would have provided everyone with health insurance were soundly defeated by 1950.

JFK and LBJ

Private health insurance plans grew more common throughout the 1950s.

Federal tax incentives, as well as a desire to maintain the loyalty of their professional and blue-collar workers alike, spurred companies and other employers to offer private health insurance as a standard benefit. Healthy, working-age, employed adults – most of whom were white men – increasingly gained private coverage. So did their families, in many cases.

Everyone else – people with low incomes, those who weren’t working and people over 65 – had few options for health care coverage. Then, as now, Americans without private health insurance tended to have more health problems than those who had it, meaning that they also needed more of the health care they struggled to afford.

But this also made them risky and unprofitable for private insurance companies, which typically charged them high premiums or more often declined to cover them at all.

Health care activists saw an opportunity. Veteran health care reformers such as Wilbur Cohen of the Social Security Administration, having lost the battle for universal coverage, envisioned a narrower program of government-funded health care for people over 65 and those with low incomes. Cohen and other reformers reasoned that if these populations could get coverage in a government-provided health insurance program, it might serve as a step toward an eventual universal health care system.

While President John F. Kennedy endorsed these plans, they would not be enacted until Johnson was sworn in following JFK’s assassination. In 1965, Johnson signed a landmark health care bill into law under the umbrella of his “Great Society” agenda, which also included antipoverty programs and civil rights legislation.

That law created Medicare and Medicaid.

From Reagan to Trump

As Medicaid enrollment grew throughout the 1970s and 1980s, conservatives increasingly conflated the program with the stigma of what they dismissed as unearned “welfare.” In the 1970s, California Gov. Ronald Reagan developed his national reputation as a leading figure in the conservative movement in part through his high-profile attempts to cut and privatize Medicaid services in his state.

Upon assuming the presidency in the early 1980s, Reagan slashed federal funding for Medicaid by 18%. The cuts resulted in some 600,000 people who depended on Medicaid suddenly losing their coverage, often with dire consequences.

Medicaid spending has since grown, but the program has been a source of partisan debate ever since.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Republicans attempted to change how Medicaid was funded. Instead of having the federal government match what states were spending at different levels that were based on what the states needed, they proposed a block grant system. That is, the federal government would have contributed a fixed amount to a state’s Medicaid budget, making it easier to constrain the program’s costs and potentially limiting how much health care it could fund.

These efforts failed, but Trump reintroduced that idea during his first term. And block grants are among the ideas House Republicans have floated since Trump’s second term began to achieve the spending cuts they seek.

The ACA’s expansion

The 2010 Affordable Care Act greatly expanded the Medicaid program by extending its coverage to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty line. All but 10 states have joined the Medicaid expansion, which a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made optional.

As of 2023, Medicaid was the country’s largest source of public health insurance, making up 18% of health care expenditures and over half of all spending on long-term care. Medicaid covers nearly 4 in 10 children and 80% of children who live in poverty. Medicaid is a particularly crucial source of coverage for people of color and pregnant women. It also helps pay for low-income people who need skilled nursing and round-the-clock care to live in nursing homes.

In the absence of a universal health care system, Medicaid fills many of the gaps left by private insurance policies for millions of Americans. From Medi-Cal in California to Husky Health in Connecticut, Medicaid is a crucial pillar of the health care system. This makes the proposed House cuts easier said than done.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Ben Zdencanovic, University of California, Los Angeles

Read more:

• GOP lawmakers commit to big spending cuts, putting Medicaid under a spotlight – but trimming the low-income health insurance program would be hard
• Cutting Medicaid and federal programs are among 4 key Trump administration policy changes that could make life harder for disabled people
• From FDR’s food stamps to Trump’s harvest boxes: The history of helping the poor get enough to eat

Ben Zdencanovic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: President Lyndon B. Johnson, left, next to former President Harry S. Truman, signs into law the measure creating Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. AP Photo

The post Trump administration targets Medicaid, a cornerstone of healthcare for millions appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Michael Elliott, Towson University

Picture a packed stadium of fans in extreme weather, all clad in their favorite jerseys, cheering and cursing at their favorite American football team or European soccer club. Or a crush of screaming fans, singing and dancing in unison at a Taylor Swift or K-pop concert. Or a sea of costumed “Star Wars” fans, lightsabers aloft, filling up movie theaters on opening night of a new movie.

Plenty of people like to watch sports, attend concerts and go to the movies. But what about those fans – the die-hard ones, if you will – whose dedication goes even further? The fans whose daily lives are deeply intertwined with their interests?

Die-hard fans tend to have a detailed, intricate knowledge. They collect, display and cherish memorabilia. They flock to iconic “pilgrimage” places: King’s Cross Train Station in London for “Harry Potter” fans, or Graceland in Memphis, Tennessee, for Elvis devotees. Their interests inspire them, shaping how they behave and view the world.

This level of devotion seems to go well beyond entertainment. Indeed, it may seem, well, almost religious.

Since 2018, I have been studying the realm of “comic-con culture”: fandoms built on comic books, superheroes, science fiction, anime and manga, gaming and cosplay. Based on my surveys and follow-up interviews, I have found that many dedicated fans describe something sacred about their experiences, something beyond entertainment and escapism.

Defining ‘sacred’

What does “sacred” mean, exactly?

A popular starting point is French sociologist Emile Durkheim and his 1912 treatise, “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.” One of Durkheim’s most enduring legacies is how he defined religion in terms of beliefs and practices about “sacred things” that unify a community. The sacred, he explained, is something a group sets apart as powerful, transcendent and holy, clearly distinguished from the mundane world of everyday affairs.

This conception of religion includes gods or the supernatural, but it is not exclusive to them. Other beliefs and practices can be sacred, too. Durkheim’s insights have inspired many scholars, including those who study fan behavior.

In my own work as a sociologist, I organize this concept of the sacred into seven specific dimensions. For example, the sacred is powerful: a potent force that garners respect, fear and awe. The sacred is transcendent: revered and dignified beyond everyday affairs. And the sacred provides meaning: a source of essential values and purpose.

Comic-con culture

For several years, I’ve been distributing surveys at comic conventions on the East Coast of the U.S. and conducting follow-up interviews. The questions gather a variety of data, but also measure whether fans experience their interests as sacred, and in what ways.

The results are striking. While fans certainly enjoy entertainment and escape, their responses also highlight several aspects of how I define “sacredness” – particularly its ability to instill moral values, provide creative inspiration and reinforce communal bonds.

Many fans describe comic-con culture as a source of principles – such as inclusivity, compassion and self-development – that guide their behavior.

Comics “have always focused on issues of justice, inequality, power dynamics, and the ethics around things like use of force, etc., all of which have affected my own feelings and beliefs about ethical behavior,” one respondent shared. Other fans highlighted quotes from “Spider-Man” – “with great power comes great responsibility” – and “Harry Potter”: “We must choose between what is right and what is easy.”

Another respondent spoke about the Jedi: the ancient order of monklike warriors who channel forces of good to help others and maintain peace in the “Star Wars” universe. This universe “personifies how to go about treating the world around me and trying to do ‘the next right thing,’” the fan explained. “The Jedi, though not perfect, help me have a personal code in how I treat people. … If ‘Jedi’ were a real religion I’d probably be an active participant.”

Comic-con culture sparks passion and enjoyment; it is a wellspring of inspiration and creativity. The Japanese genres of anime and manga are “an art form of self-expression and it creates an [outlet] for individuals to express themselves freely,” one person wrote. In particular, they mentioned cosplay, which is short for “costume play”: the faithful recreation of a favorite character from a game, movie or comic, both in dress and mannerisms. Cosplayers are a mainstay of comic conventions, as are cosplay contests.

Another remarked, “being a fan of tabletop RPGs [role-playing games] allows me to create collaborative stories with others. I consider this storytelling powerful and important.”

Comic-con culture enables people to connect with like-minded individuals and forge meaningful relationships around these interests. It can also inspire a strong sense of fellowship.

Highlighting the power of these connections, one respondent said, “as an atheist, there’s not much I believe in. Being a fan has inspired me to believe in people, and that there is some purpose to my life.” Fandom groups “have given me decades-long friendships that span the globe,” another said.

Finally, comic-con culture is a sanctuary; it provides space for fans to be themselves, helps them cope with personal struggles, and inspires hope.

This was a prominent theme. For example, one attendee from Philadelphia divulged mental health issues but explained how his involvement in board-game tournaments and the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons offered a safe space from anxiety: “I feel like when I’m doing these things, I can really be me. So, it’s more about letting myself be my true self and not feeling, or not caring, about the others around me that are judging me.”

Given these findings, I believe that social scientists need to consider popular culture more seriously as a fundamental feature of society that people can make sacred in different ways.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Michael Elliott, Towson University

Read more:

• America’s postwar fling with romance comics
• Luce, a cartoon mascot for Catholic Church’s 2025 Jubilee, appeals to a younger generation while embracing time-honored traditions
• ‘Across the Spider-Verse’ and the Latino legacy of Spider-Man

Michael Elliott has received funding for this research from the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. 

Feature Image: An attendee dressed as Dvalin from the video game ‘Genshin Impact’ poses during New York Comic Con in October 2024. Charles Sykes/Invision/AP

The post Comic-con culture: Fans’ devotion transcends entertainment appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Rebecca Lester, Washington University in St. Louis

“No one expects a grown woman in her 40s to have an eating disorder. That’s for teenagers, right? Well, guess what – it happened to me.”

Alexa, a 44-year-old real estate agent, was telling me about her struggle with non-purging bulimia, which has come to control her life. We spoke in 2024 at a coffee shop as part of my ongoing research on eating disorders.

The names of my research subjects have been changed for this article to protect their identities.

“I didn’t understand what was happening for a long time,” Alexa said. “It didn’t even occur to me that it could be an eating disorder.”

She is not alone. A 2023 study estimated that over 9 million American women over 40 develop eating disorders. Some had eating disorders earlier in life and experience a resurgence at midlife. Others develop them for the first time in their 40s or older.

I am an anthropologist and licensed therapist who has researched and treated eating disorders for the past 30 years. I have also recovered from an eating disorder myself. I wrote a 2021 book about how contemporary clinical approaches to eating disorders can harm people and keep them sick. One of the things I uncovered in my research is that older women with eating disorders often fly completely under the radar, leading to increased health risks and even death.

My research leads me to conclude that this is due to health care providers’ misunderstanding of the cultural and existential factors affecting women in midlife, which can make this a time of increased risk of developing an eating disorder.

By the numbers

The numbers around eating disorders at midlife are sobering: Rates of eating disorders among middle-aged women have increased in recent years. As many as 13% of American women over 50 have eating disorder symptoms, slightly more than the percentage diagnosed with breast cancer.

One study found that 71% of women ages 30 to 74 wanted to be thinner, although 73% of them were at clinically normal weight for their height and age. Research shows that although anorexia, an eating disorder characterized by the severe restriction of calories, becomes less common after age 26, bulimia, where patients binge and then purge food from their bodies, doesn’t reach its peak until age 47. Binge eating disorder, or habitually eating excessive amounts in one sitting, can continue to plague women into their 70s.

Lack of treatment

Despite the prevalence of eating disorders in older women, they are often the least likely to get help.

In fact, flagrant symptoms of an eating disorder can be missed in these middle-aged people. At 52, Janelle, a schoolteacher, has struggled with anorexia for the past four years. Because she is petite, her slight frame hasn’t raised any alarms for medical professionals.

“My doctor told me I couldn’t possibly have an eating disorder because I’m too old,” Janelle told me. “I know I’m anorexic. I was anorexic as a teenager, so I know exactly what this is. My doctor just said I should consider myself lucky because a lot of women my age actually gain weight.”

This doctor’s response is emblematic of problems in eating disorder treatment more generally in the U.S. Though tools to assess patients for eating disorders are available, most physicians and even psychiatrists receive little, if any, training in their use. Learning to identify and respond to eating disorders requires that they go through additional – and costly – specialized training.

As a result, many hold erroneous popular stereotypes about these conditions, and so women with eating disorders aren’t getting the help they need.

Beyond stereotypes

In the popular imagination, eating disorders center on things young women supposedly care about; namely, being thin and attractive – specifically, attractive to men. This stereotype is a holdover from 19th- and 20th-century understandings of hysteria, which was thought to particularly afflict young women who craved but also feared male sexual attention.

According to this paradigm, middle-aged women are thought to be out of the sexual game, so to speak, so they ought to be immune to illnesses that focus on appearance.

This perception of eating disorders is not only wrong, but also dangerous because clinicians often don’t recognize these issues in women who don’t fit this stereotype.

In reality, eating disorders are deadly conditions that emerge from a convergence of genetic susceptibility, psychological factors, family environments, life events and cultural values. And they affect people of all genders, sexual orientations and races across the socioeconomic spectrum and the lifespan.

Although the drive for thinness often is the most obvious feature of these conditions, what I have found in my 30 years of research on this topic, including talking to over 200 patients with eating disorders, is that these illnesses are at heart about desperately trying to feel worthy of existing.

A concern with body shape, then, often reflects a much deeper existential crisis that can arise during times when a person’s identity is shifting as their body is changing. One of those times is adolescence. Another is middle age.

Seeking identity in middle age

Outwardly, eating disorders in middle age look a lot like eating disorders at any other age. But the body concerns and identity dilemmas associated with middle age are different from those that plague adolescence and young adulthood.

As women age, their metabolism slows down, their bodies don’t work the way they used to, and they visibly begin to wear their life experience. Questions of mortality and the meaning of life can come to the fore. It’s often a time of shifting dynamics within families. For those who have children, middle age is typically the time when those children are becoming more independent or leaving home. This is also a time when aging parents may require care.

At the same time, for women in particular, the pressures to remain fresh, fit and firm despite aging are monumental. The popularity of treatments like Botox, dermal fillers, Ozempic and the massive anti-aging industry have exploded as this over-40 market has been cultivated.

“We’re supposed to look 30 forever,” said Shelly, a 51-year-old marketing professional struggling with anorexia. “You’ve heard of the ‘middle-age spread’? There’s no way I’m going to let that happen to me.”

A woman’s worth

Progress in gender equality notwithstanding, women’s social worth in modern Western culture is still disproportionately determined by appearance and sexual and reproductive capacities.

It is not surprising, then, that looks and youth become the focus of existential distress for many women over 40. As older women struggle to secure a sense of value in a youth-obsessed world, food and eating can become a focus of attention that ultimately becomes destructive.

This doesn’t mean these women are vain or superficial. Rather, they have picked up on what their culture values, and they have internalized the message that thinness is a way to attain that.

“Our culture doesn’t value older women the way other cultures do,” observed Kaytlin, a 47-year-old office manager struggling with disordered eating. “The idea that older women should be revered for their wisdom and influence is foreign to us. Instead, we become invisible.”

My hope is that dispelling some of the erroneous assumptions that have driven both public perception and clinical practice about these illnesses will help women get the care they need.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Rebecca Lester, Washington University in St. Louis

Read more:

• Mounting research documents the harmful effects of social media use on mental health, including body image and development of eating disorders
• Friday essay: ‘I was unseen, even to myself’ – as many as half of people with anorexia are autistic. Fiona Wright is one of them
• Eating disorders are about emotional pain – not food

Rebecca Lester does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Changes in identity in midlife can increase the risk of developing an eating disorder. muratseyit/E+ via Getty Images

The post Middle age is a time when women are vulnerable to eating disorders appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Rae Robertson-Anderson, University of San Diego

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

Is ranch dressing a liquid or a solid? – Gabriel, age 8, DeLand, Florida

Imagine you’re eating dinner. You try to pour some ranch dressing onto your plate to dip your veggies into. You tip the container upside down, but nothing comes out. Seems like a solid.

So you shake the bottle up and down, and a big blob of dressing plops out and hits your plate. Seems like a liquid.

But the dressing doesn’t spread all over the plate, like milk or any other liquid would if you spilled it. Rather, it maintains some shape, kind of like the veggies on your plate. Seems like a solid.

But every time you plunge your solid carrot or celery into the blob of dressing, it distorts the shape of the blob a bit. You can even smear and spread the blob around, but the shape and stiffness of the celery isn’t affected by this game. Seems like a liquid.

So, is ranch dressing a liquid and a solid? Or is it neither?

I’m a professor of physics and biophysics, and my research focuses on understanding squishy materials that have both liquid and solid properties. Physicists call these materials soft matter. In my lab, we investigate what makes biological materials such as skin and snot squishy – and how we can create bio-inspired materials that have the same fascinating properties. I also host a social media channel, Physics Mama, where my two boys and I ask and answer questions about the physics of everyday life.

The basic states of matter

To figure out what’s going on with ranch dressing, you need to understand what the different states of matter are and what makes each one unique. “Matter” is just the scientific word for “stuff,” and it is anything that is made up of the microscopic building blocks called atoms and that has mass.

You probably learned in school that there are three states of matter: solid, liquid and gas. Think ice cube, a puddle of water and fog. Maybe you also learned about a fourth state, known as plasma.

These different states are defined by how the extremely tiny molecules making up the matter interact with each other. These molecules are so small that you can’t see them with your naked eye. But their invisible interactions determine the properties of the materials that you can see.

Molecules in a solid are physically attached to each other in a way that keeps them from moving around relative to each other. This is what makes solids rigid and able to keep a fixed shape.

The molecules in a liquid, on the other hand, are not connected to each other. They can move around, slide past each other and mix themselves up. This freedom of movement is what allows a liquid to take the shape of whatever container it is in.

The molecules in a gas are completely free to move around without really bumping into the other molecules in the gas too much. Like a liquid, a gas will take the shape of any container it is in and has no fixed shape. But unlike liquids and solids, gases can also change their size or volume.

A plasma is similar to a gas but has much more energy. This energy causes the electrically charged parts of the molecules, called protons and electrons, to break apart. The Sun and stars are examples of plasma, as is the material that makes neon signs glow.

Elasticity and viscosity

While solids hold their shape, they are not completely rigid. The connections between the molecules behave like tiny springs, which makes solids elastic. If you push on a solid, it will deform – but it will bounce back to its original state when you stop pushing, kind of like your mattress when you bounce on your bed. Of course, this happens at the molecular level, so you can’t see it happening.

And even though liquids easily change shape, they do resist this change due to the friction between the liquid molecules as they try to move past each other. This friction is called viscosity. Liquids such as honey or syrup are much more viscous than liquids such as milk or water, making them harder to stir. Imagine trying to swim in a swimming pool of honey – delicious but difficult.

A fifth state

Ranch dressing is actually a fifth state of matter known as soft matter. Soft matter can have properties of both liquids and solids, so materials scientists say it is viscoelastic – a combination of viscous and elastic. Other common examples of soft matter include yogurt, cookie dough, shampoo, toothpaste, silly putty, snot, slime and frosting.

These substances aren’t quite solid and aren’t quite liquid – they’re a little of both. You can pour shampoo out of a bottle, but if you put a bit between your fingers and pull them apart, it will stretch between your fingers. Cookie dough can hold its own shape, but if you push on it, it deforms and doesn’t bounce back.

Many viscoelastic materials exhibit shear thinning, which means that their viscosity decreases the more you agitate them. This is why shaking your bottle of ranch dressing or ketchup allows you to pour it out – even though before shaking it was too solid-like to leave the bottle. It’s also why yogurt that seems quite solid and able to maintain its shape becomes more liquid-like when you stir it quickly.

Squishy materials can also exhibit shear thickening – they become more rigid the harder you try to deform them. This is how Oobleck, a simple mixture of cornstarch and water, works. You can slowly pour it and submerge your hand in it, like any other liquid, but if you squeeze it or shake it up it solidifies.

A different kind of molecule

The reason these squishy materials have both liquid and solid properties is that they’re made of polymers: long, chainlike molecules. These long chains get all tangled up, like a bowl of spaghetti, so they are sort of connected, like the molecules in a solid, but also sort of free to move past one other, like molecules in a liquid.

Most store-bought ranch dressing contains xantham gum, which is a natural polymer used to thicken and stabilize many foods.

So the next time you try to pour your ranch dressing out of the bottle, you can imagine the xantham gum polymers all tangled up with one another, making the dressing act like a solid. When you shake the bottle, you’re disentangling the polymers so they slide and flow past each other, allowing the dressing to flow easily out of the bottle and onto your plate.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Rae Robertson-Anderson, University of San Diego

Read more:

• Peanut butter is a liquid – the physics of this and other unexpected fluids
• ‘Dancing’ raisins − a simple kitchen experiment reveals how objects can extract energy from their environment and come to life
• What’s that microplastic? Advances in machine learning are making identifying plastics in the environment more reliable

Rae Robertson-Anderson receives funding from the US National Science Foundation, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and National Institutes of Health.

Feature Image: It pours like a liquid but maintains its shape like a solid. Jack Andersen/Stone via Getty Images

The post Is ranch dressing a liquid or a solid? A physicist explains appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Rachel Besharat Mann, Wesleyan University and Gravity Goldberg, Wesleyan University

The U.S. educational landscape has been drastically transformed since the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered school campuses five years ago.

Access to high-quality teachers and curriculum developed by teachers is shrinking, for example. Likewise, there has been a loss of emotional support for students and a decline in the school use of technology and social media.

As education scholars focused on literacy practices in schools, here are five ways we believe the COVID-19 pandemic – and the rapid shift to remote learning and back – has transformed education:

1. Teachers are leaving, and those staying are stressed

At the start of the 2024-2025 school year, 82% of U.S. public schools had teaching vacancies.

Schools have tried to adapt by expanding class sizes and hiring substitute teachers. They have also increased use of video conferencing to Zoom teachers into classrooms.

Teacher retention has been a problem for at least a decade. But after the pandemic, there was an increase in the number of teachers who considered leaving the profession earlier than expected.

When teachers leave, often in the middle of the school year, it can require their colleagues to step in and cover extra classes. This means teachers who stay are overworked and possibly not teaching in their area of certification.

This, in turn, leads to burnout. It also increases the likelihood that students will not have highly qualified teachers in some hard-to-fill positions like physical science and English.

2. Increase in scripted curriculum

As of fall 2024, 40 states and Washington had passed science of reading laws, which mandate evidence-based reading instruction rooted in phonics and other foundational skills.

While the laws don’t necessarily lead to scripted curriculum, most states have chosen to mandate reading programs that require teachers to adhere to strict pacing. They also instruct teachers not to deviate from the teachers’ manual.

Many of these reading programs came under scrutiny by curricular evaluators from New York University in 2022. They found the most common elementary reading programs were culturally destructive or culturally insufficient – meaning they reinforce stereotypes and portray people of color in inferior and destructive ways that reinforce stereotypes.

This leaves teachers to try to navigate the mandated curriculum alongside the needs of their students, many of whom are culturally and linguistically diverse. They either have to ignore the mandated script or ignore their students. Neither method allows teachers to be effective.

When teachers are positioned as implementers of curriculum instead of professionals who can be trusted to make decisions, it can lead to student disengagement and a lack of student responsiveness.

This form of de-professionalization is a leading cause of teacher shortages. Teachers are most effective, research shows, when they feel a sense of agency, something that is undermined by scripted teaching.

3. Improvements in teen mental health, but there’s more to do

Many of the narratives surrounding adolescent mental health, particularly since the pandemic, paint a doomscape of mindless social media use and isolation.

However, data published in 2024 shows improvements in teen reports of persistent sadness and hopelessness. Though the trend is promising in terms of mental health, in-school incidences of violence and bullying rose in 2021-22, and many teens report feeling unsafe at school.

Other reports have shown an increase in feelings of loneliness and isolation among teens since the pandemic.

4. Crackdown on students’ technology use in schools

COVID-19 prompted schools to make an abrupt switch to educational technology, and many schools have kept many of these policies in place.

For example, Google Classroom and other learning management systems are commonly used in many schools, particularly in middle school and high school.

These platforms can help parents engage with their children’s coursework. That facilitates conversations and parental awareness.

But this reliance on screens has also come under fire for privacy issues – the sharing of personal information and sensitive photos – and increasing screen time.

And with academia’s use of technology on the rise, cellphone usage has also increased among U.S. teens, garnering support for school cellphone bans.

But banning these devices in schools may not help teens, as smartphone use is nearly universal in the U.S. Teens need support from educators to support them as they learn to navigate the complex digital world safely, efficiently and with balance.

In light of data surrounding adolescent mental health and online isolation – and the potential for connection through digital spaces – it’s also important that teens are aware of positive support networks that are available online.

Though these spaces can provide social supports, it is important for teens to understand the strengths and limitations of technology and receive authentic guidance from adults that a technology ban may prohibit.

5. Students and adults need social emotional support

Students returned to in-person schooling with a mix of skill levels and with a variety of social and emotional needs.

Social and emotional learning includes self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relational skills and decision-making.

These skills are vital for academic success and social relationships.

Teachers reported higher student needs for social and emotional learning after they returned to in-person instruction.

While some of this social and emotional teaching came under fire from lawmakers and parents, this was due to confusion about what it actually entailed. These skills do not constitute a set of values or beliefs that parents may not agree with. Rather, they allow students to self-regulate and navigate social situations by explicitly teaching students about feelings and behaviors.

One area where students may need support is with cognitive flexibility, or the ability to adapt to current situations and keep an open mind. Classroom instruction that engages students in varied tasks and authentic teaching strategies rooted in real-life scenarios can strengthen this ability in students.

Besides allowing students to be engaged members of a school community, cognitive flexibility is important because it supports the skill development that is part of many state English language arts and social studies standards.

Social and emotional learning and cognitive flexibility are key components that allow students to learn.

Due to vague or confusing state policies, many schools have stopped teaching social and emotional learning skills, or minimized their use.

This, coupled with teacher stress and burnout, means that both adults and children in schools are often not getting their social and emotional needs met.

Message of mistrust

While we described five shifts since the start of the pandemic, the overall trend in K-12 schools is one of mistrust.

We feel that the message – from districts, state legislators and parents – is that teachers cannot be trusted to make choices.

This represents a massive shift. During the initial phase of the COVID-19 lockdown, teachers were revered and thanked for their service.

We believe in teacher autonomy and professionalism, and we hope this list can help Americans reflect on the direction of the past five years. If society wants a different outcome in the next five years, it starts with trust.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Rachel Besharat Mann, Wesleyan University and Gravity Goldberg, Wesleyan University

Read more:

• America is becoming a nation of homebodies
• Long COVID puzzle pieces are falling into place – the picture is unsettling
• Anti-LGBTQ+ policies harm the health of not only LGBTQ+ people, but all Americans

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Students sit in pop-up tents during wind ensemble class at Wenatchee High School on Feb. 26, 2021 in Wenatchee, Wash.. David Ryder/Getty Images

The post 5 ways schools have shifted since COVID-19 appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Gustavo Morello

Holy Week and Easter are perhaps the most important days in the Christian calendar. Many associate those celebrations with church services, processions, candles, incense, fasting and penances.

However, there is another tradition that many Christians follow – that of tattooing. Historically, Easter was an important time for tattoos among some Christian groups. Today, Christian tattooing happens in many parts of the world and all year around. Some Christians visiting Jerusalem around Easter will get a tattoo of a cross, or a lamb, usually on their forearms.

As a sociologist of religion and a Jesuit Catholic priest, I have long studied tattoos as religious practices. I have interviewed tattoo artists in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Loreto in Italy who have been continuing and recreating the tradition of Christian tattooing. Evidence is clear the practice started shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion and spread across Europe in later centuries.

The first Christian tattoos

The Romans, like the Greeks, tattooed slaves and prisoners, usually with letters or words on their foreheads that indicated their crime. Soon after Jesus’ death, around the year 30 C.E., they started enslaving and tattooing Christians with the marks “AM” – meaning “ad metalla,” or condemned to work in the mines, a punishment that often resulted in death.

Almost at the same time, Christians who were not enslaved got tattoos of the early Christian signs such as fish or lambs in solidarity and to show that they identified with Jesus.

There were no specific words in Latin or Greek for tattooing, so the words “stizo,” “signum” and “stigma” were used. The word stigma also referred to the marks of nails on Jesus’ hands and foot, as a result of his crucifixion. Christians often got their own “stigmas”: a sign – usually a cross – in Jerusalem to honor Christ’s martyrdom.

The beginning of a tradition

There are several documented accounts of the tradition.

One from the third century mentions Christians in present-day Egypt and Syria getting tattoos of fish and crosses.

Another tells about the commentary that Procopius of Gaza, a theologian who lived between 475 and 538 C.E., wrote on the Book of Isaiah after he found that many Christians living in the Holy Land had a cross tattooed on their wrists. “Still others will write on their hand, ‘The Lord’s,’ and will take the name Israel,” he noted.

When a plague hit the Scythians, nomadic people living around the Black Sea, in 600 C.E., tattoos were believed to provide protection from the deadly disease. Theophylact Simocatta, one of the last historians of late antiquity, mentioned that missionaries among them recommended that “the foreheads of the young be tattooed with this very sign” – meaning that of a cross.

Many testimonies mentioned Crusaders and pilgrims returning from the Holy Land with a tattoo during the Middle Ages – a tradition that continued in early modern times, between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Christian tattoos in Great Britain

Other cultures used tattoos in different ways. When Romans came in contact with the Celts tribes that inhabited the British Isles in 400 C.E., they called them Picts because they were covered in body art.

Pope Gregory the Great sent envoys to convert the Celts to Christianity, followed by a visit from another Vatican delegation. While missionaries were against “pagan tattooing,” both delegations agreed that tattoos done for the Christian god were fine. The members of the second delegation in the late 700s even said, “If anyone were to undergo this injury of staining for the sake of God, he would receive a great reward for it.”

Similar was the conclusion of the Northumbria Council, a church gathering in Northern England in 787: Tattoos done for the right god were acceptable. At that time, the Anglo-Saxon elite also had tattoos; the bishop of York, Saint Wilfrid, for example, got a tattoo of a cross.

Tattoos in Italy

Around the 1300s, as the Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land were losing control with the coming of the Ottomans, there appeared in Italy shrines called “Sacri Monti.” These shrines were placed on “holy mountains” where devotees could pilgrimage safely, instead of risking their lives going to Jerusalem, which by then was under the control of the Ottomans.

These shrines were established in cities such as Naples, Varallo and Loreto. Pilgrims could get tattoos in some of these shrines. One place was Loreto’s sanctuary, established in the early 1300s. A relic from the “Holy House,” which, according to the Christian tradition, is the house where the Virgin Mary is believed to have received the news that she will bear God’s son, was brought to Loreto’s sanctuary.

Tattooing in Loreto’s sanctuary was a communal activity, done by carpenters, shoemakers and artisans, who brought their stalls and tools to the main square
during the days of celebrations and tattooed whoever wanted to get a mark of their devotion. These tattoos typically used wood planks for transferring the design on the body, like a stamp. However, the city of Loreto banned tattooing for hygienic reasons in 1871, according to Caterina Pigorini Beri, an anthropologist, who was one of the first to document the practice.

But people kept getting them. A shoemaker, Leonardo Conditti, was among those who kept doing tattoos in hiding during the 1940s.

Present but unseen

From the 1200s to the 1700s, the custom of Christian tattooing was prevalent in Europe among peasants, seafarers, soldiers and artisans as much as among nuns and monks. They were getting crosses, images of the Virgin Mary, the name of Jesus, and some sentences from the Bible.

Following the Renaissance, however, European culture came to associate tattoos with those considered “uncivilized,” such as peoples in the colonies, criminals and poorer Catholics. Many European intellectuals viewed Catholicism as a superstition more than a real religion.

The word “tattoo” came to the Western languages after the French admiral and explorer Louis de Bougainville and British explorer James Cook returned from their trips to the South Pacific at the end of the 1700s. There, they saw local people getting marks on their bodies and using the word “tatau” to name those drawings. However, it does not mean that tattoos came back at that time. They had never left.

The practice today

These days, some churches in the Middle East, such as some Coptic Christian churches in Egypt, incorporate the practice of getting a tattoo into the baptismal rituals.

Indeed, Holy Land tattooing has never stopped. Wassim Razzouk, whom I interviewed in 2022, is a 27th-generation tattooist – his family has been marking pilgrims in Jerusalem since 1300. Razzouk claims to have some of the 500-year-old wood planks his family used for tattooing.

Another tattoo artist whom I interviewed, Walid Ayash, does pilgrimage tattoos for those who visit the Nativity church in Bethlehem – a beloved custom among Arab Christians. He said that tattooing happens all year around, as long as there are pilgrims visiting the Nativity church. Although this year, as a result of the war in Gaza, Israeli authorities have restricted access to Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

In Italy, artist Jonatal Carducci is working on recovering the tradition of religious tattooing in Loreto. In a 2023 interview with me, he explained how he has painstakingly replicated the designs of the wood planks, which are both in the Museum of the Holy House and the Folkloric Museum of Rome. In 2019, he opened a parlor where Leonardo Conditti used to work. Visitors to the parlor can choose among more than 60 designs for their tattoos, including the Virgin Mary of Loreto, crosses and representations of Jesus’ heart.

This Easter, as some Christians get tattoos, this history might serve as a reminder of tattooing as a legitimate Christian practice, one that has been in use since the beginnings of the Common Era.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Gustavo Morello, Boston College

Read more:

• Scorsese’s gods of the streets: From ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ to ‘Silence,’ faith is rarely far off in his films
• Tattoo regret: Can you make it go away?
• What Ötzi the prehistoric iceman can teach us about the use of tattoos in ceremonial healing or religious rites

Gustavo Morello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Christian Palestinian tattoo artist Walid Ayash draws a tattoo on the arm of a Coptic Egyptian pilgrim on April 28, 2016, at his studio in Bethlehem. Thomas Coex /AFP via Getty Images

The post Easter marks the revival of Christian tattooing tradition appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Seth Ashley, Boise State University

Political spin is nothing new, and identifying reliable news and information can be hard to do during any presidency. But the return of Donald Trump to the White House has reignited debates over truth, accountability and the role of media in a deeply divided America.

Misinformation is an umbrella term that covers all kinds of false and misleading content, and there is lots of it out there.

During Trump’s chaotic first presidency, the president himself promoted false claims about COVID-19, climate change and the 2020 election.

Now, in his second term, Trump is again using the bully pulpit of the presidency to spread false claims – for example, on Ukraine and Canada as well as immigration, inflation and, still, the 2020 election.

Meanwhile, social media platforms such as Meta have ended fact-checking programs created after Trump’s first election win, and presidential adviser Elon Musk continues to use social media platform X to amplify Trump’s false claims and his own conspiracy theories.

To stay informed while also arming yourself against misinformation, it’s crucial to practice what I call good “news hygiene” by developing strong news literacy skills.

News literacy, as I argue in my open-access 2020 book “News Literacy and Democracy” and in recent research with colleagues, is about more than fact-checking and detecting AI-generated fakes. It’s about understanding how modern media works and how content is influenced, from TikTok “newsfluencers” to FOX News to The New York Times.

Here are six ways to become a smarter, saner news consumer.

1. Recognize the influence of algorithms

Algorithms are the hidden computer formulas that mediate everything news consumers read, watch, click on and react to online. Despite the illusion of neutrality, algorithms shape people’s perceptions of reality and are designed to maximize engagement.

Algorithmic recommendation engines that power everything from X to YouTube can even contribute to a slow-burn destabilization of American society by shoving consumers into partisan echo chambers that increase polarization and erode social trust.

Sometimes, algorithms can feed falsehoods that warp people’s perceptions or tell them to engage in dangerous behavior. Facebook groups spreading “Stop the Steal” messages contributed to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. TikTok algorithms had people drinking laundry detergent in the “borax challenge.” Dylann Roof killed nine Black people based on falsehoods from hate groups he found in search results.

Rather than passively consuming whatever appears in your feeds – allowing brain rot to set in – actively seek out a variety of sources to inform you about current events. The news shouldn’t just tell you what you want to hear.

And spread the word. People who simply understand that algorithms filter information are more likely to take steps to combat misinformation.

2. Understand the economics of corporate news

Media outlets operate within economic systems that shape their priorities.

For-profit newsrooms, which produce the bulk of news consumed in the U.S., rely heavily on advertising revenue, which can reduce the quality of news and create a commercial bias. Places such as ABC, CNN and FOX, as well as local network TV affiliates, can still do good work, but their business model helps to explain sensational horse-race election coverage and false-balance reporting that leaves room for doubt on established facts about climate change and vaccines.

At the same time, the economic outlook for news is not good. Declining revenues and staff cuts also reduce the quality of news.

Nonprofit newsrooms and public media provide alternatives that generally prioritize public interest over profit. And if you have the budget, paying for quality journalism with a subscription can help credible outlets survive.

Traditional journalism has never been perfect, but the collapse of the news business is unquestionably bad for democracy. Countries with better funding for public media tend to have stronger democracies, and compared with other rich nations, the U.S. spends almost nothing on public service broadcasting.

3. Focus on source evaluation and verification

Particularly with AI-generated content on the rise, source evaluation and verification are essential skills. Here are some ways to identify trustworthy journalism:

• Quality of evidence: Are claims verified with support from a variety of informed individuals and perspectives?
• Transparency about sources: Is the reporter clear about where their information came from and who shared it?
• Adherence to ethical guidelines: Does the outlet follow the basic journalistic principles of accuracy and independence?
• Corrections: Does the outlet correct its errors and follow up on incomplete reporting?

Be cautious with content that lacks the author’s name, relies heavily on anonymous sources – or uses no sources at all – or is published by outlets with a clear ideological agenda. These aren’t immediate disqualifiers – some credible news magazines such as The Economist have no bylines, for example, and some sources legitimately need anonymity for protection – but watch out for news operations that routinely engage in these practices and obscure their motive for doing so.

A good online verification practice is called “lateral reading.” That’s when you open new browser tabs to verify claims you see on news sites and social media. Ask: Is anyone else covering this, and have they reached similar conclusions?

4. Examine your emotional reactions

One of the hallmarks of misinformation is its ability to provoke strong emotional responses, whether outrage, fear or validation.

These reactions, research shows, can cloud judgment and make people more susceptible to false or misleading information. The primitive brains of humans are wired to reject information that challenges our beliefs and to accept information we like, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.

When encountering content that sparks an emotional reaction, ask yourself: Who benefits from this narrative? What evidence supports it? Is this information informative or manipulative?

If the answers make you suspicious, investigate further before acting or sharing.

5. Guard against propaganda

Everyone in politics works to shape narratives in order to gain support for their agenda. It’s called spin.

But Trump goes further, spreading documented lies to pump up his followers and undermine the legitimacy of basic democratic institutions.

He also targets media he doesn’t like. From discrediting critical outlets as “fake news” or calling journalists the “enemy of the people,” these tactics silence dissent, undermine public trust in journalism and alter perceptions around acceptable public discourse and behavior.

Meanwhile, he amplifies information and people who support his political causes. This is called propaganda.

Understanding the mechanics of propaganda – its use of repetition, emotional appeal, scapegoating, scare tactics and unrealistic promises – can help inoculate people against its influence.

6. Stay engaged

Democracy relies on an informed and active citizenry to hold accountable their government and the officials who work in it as well as other powerful players in society. Yet the sheer volume of misinformation and bad news these days can feel overwhelming.

Rather than tuning out – what scholars call “news avoidance” – you can practice critical consumption of news.

Read deeply, look beyond headlines and short video clips, question the framing of stories, and encourage discussions about the role of media in society. Share reliable information with your friends and colleagues, and model good news hygiene for others.

Correcting misinformation is notoriously hard, so if someone you know shares it, start a dialogue by asking – privately and gently – where they heard it and whether they think it’s really true.

Finally, set goals for your consumption. What are your information needs at any given moment, and where can you meet that need? Some experts say 30 minutes a day is enough. Don’t waste your time on garbage.

Touch grass

While it’s important to stay engaged, so is getting outside and connecting with nature to calm and soothe your busy brain. Logging off and connecting with people in real life will keep your support system strong for when things are tough. Protect your mental health by turning off notifications and taking breaks from your phone.

Practicing good news hygiene isn’t just about protecting ourselves – it’s about fostering a media environment that supports democracy and informed participation.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Seth Ashley, Boise State University

Read more:

• TikTok fears point to larger problem: Poor media literacy in the social media age
• How a journalism class is teaching middle schoolers to fight fake news
• Identifying a fake picture online is harder than you might think

Seth Ashley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Not all news sources are created equal. Noah Berger/AP Images

The post Strategies to combat misinformation with media overload appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Paulo Carvão, Harvard Kennedy School

Imagine a not-too-distant future where you let an intelligent robot manage your finances. It knows everything about you. It follows your moves, analyzes markets, adapts to your goals and invests faster and smarter than you can. Your investments soar. But then one day, you wake up to a nightmare: Your savings have been transferred to a rogue state, and they’re gone.

You seek remedies and justice but find none. Who’s to blame? The robot’s developer? The artificial intelligence company behind the robot’s “brain”? The bank that approved the transactions? Lawsuits fly, fingers point, and your lawyer searches for precedents, but finds none. Meanwhile, you’ve lost everything.

This is not the doomsday scenario of human extinction that some people in the AI field have warned could arise from the technology. It is a more realistic one and, in some cases, already present. AI systems are already making life-altering decisions for many people, in areas ranging from education to hiring and law enforcement. Health insurance companies have used AI tools to determine whether to cover patients’ medical procedures. People have been arrested based on faulty matches by facial recognition algorithms.

By bringing government and industry together to develop policy solutions, it is possible to reduce these risks and future ones. I am a former IBM executive with decades of experience in digital transformation and AI. I now focus on tech policy as a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government. I also advise tech startups and invest in venture capital.

Drawing from this experience, my team spent a year researching a way forward for AI governance. We conducted interviews with 49 tech industry leaders and members of Congress, and analyzed 150 AI-related bills introduced in the last session of Congress. We used this data to develop a model for AI governance that fosters innovation while also offering protections against harms, like a rogue AI draining your life savings.

Striking a balance

The increasing use of AI in all aspects of people’s lives raises a new set of questions to which history has few answers. At the same time, the urgency to address how it should be governed is growing. Policymakers appear to be paralyzed, debating whether to let innovation flourish without controls or risk slowing progress. However, I believe that the binary choice between regulation and innovation is a false one.

Instead, it’s possible to chart a different approach that can help guide innovation in a direction that adheres to existing laws and societal norms without stifling creativity, competition and entrepreneurship.

The U.S. has consistently demonstrated its ability to drive economic growth. The American tech innovation system is rooted in entrepreneurial spirit, public and private investment, an open market and legal protections for intellectual property and trade secrets. From the early days of the Industrial Revolution to the rise of the internet and modern digital technologies, the U.S. has maintained its leadership by balancing economic incentives with strategic policy interventions.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the development of an AI action plan for America. My team and I have developed an AI governance model that can underpin an action plan.

A new governance model

Previous presidential administrations have waded into AI governance, including the Biden administration’s since-recinded executive order. There has also been an increasing number of regulations concerning AI passed at the state level. But the U.S. has mostly avoided imposing regulations on AI. This hands-off approach stems in part from a disconnect between Congress and industry, with each doubting the other’s understanding of the technologies requiring governance.

The industry is divided into distinct camps, with smaller companies allowing tech giants to lead governance discussions. Other contributing factors include ideological resistance to regulation, geopolitical concerns and insufficient coalition-building that have marked past technology policymaking efforts. Yet, our study showed that both parties in Congress favor a uniquely American approach to governance.

Congress agrees on extending American leadership, addressing AI’s infrastructure needs and focusing on specific uses of the technology – instead of trying to regulate the technology itself. How to do it? My team’s findings led us to develop the Dynamic Governance Model, a policy-agnostic and nonregulatory method that can be applied to different industries and uses of the technology. It starts with a legislative or executive body setting a policy goal and consists of three subsequent steps:

1. Establish a public-private partnership in which public and private sector experts work together to identify standards for evaluating the policy goal. This approach combines industry leaders’ technical expertise and innovation focus with policymakers’ agenda of protecting the public interest through oversight and accountability. By integrating these complementary roles, governance can evolve together with technological developments.
2. Create an ecosystem for audit and compliance mechanisms. This market-based approach builds on the standards from the previous step and executes technical audits and compliance reviews. Setting voluntary standards and measuring against them is good, but it can fall short without real oversight. Private sector auditing firms can provide oversight so long as those auditors meet fixed ethical and professional standards.
3. Set up accountability and liability for AI systems. This step outlines the responsibilities that a company must bear if its products harm people or fail to meet standards. Effective enforcement requires coordinated efforts across institutions. Congress can establish legislative foundations, including liability criteria and sector-specific regulations. It can also create mechanisms for ongoing oversight or rely on existing government agencies for enforcement. Courts will interpret statutes and resolve conflicts, setting precedents. Judicial rulings will clarify ambiguous areas and contribute to a sturdier framework.

Benefits of balance

I believe that this approach offers a balanced path forward, fostering public trust while allowing innovation to thrive. In contrast to conventional regulatory methods that impose blanket restrictions on industry, like the one adopted by the European Union, our model:

• is incremental, integrating learning at each step.
• draws on the existing approaches used in the U.S. for driving public policy, such as competition law, existing regulations and civil litigation.
• can contribute to the development of new laws without imposing excessive burdens on companies.
• draws on past voluntary commitments and industry standards, and encourages trust between the public and private sectors.

The U.S. has long led the world in technological growth and innovation. Pursuing a public-private partnership approach to AI governance should enable policymakers and industry leaders to advance their goals while balancing innovation with transparency and responsibility. We believe that our governance model is aligned with the Trump administration’s goal of removing barriers for industry but also supports the public’s desire for guardrails.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Paulo Carvão, Harvard Kennedy School

Read more:

• Tech law in 2025: a look ahead at AI, privacy and social media regulation under the new Trump administration
• Reining in AI means figuring out which regulation options are feasible, both technically and economically
• How can Congress regulate AI? Erect guardrails, ensure accountability and address monopolistic power

Carvão advises tech startups and invests in venture capital.

Feature Image: One of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders in his second term called for developing an AI action plan. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The post Balanced approach to AI governance: A path for innovation, accountability appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Daniel Pastula, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

On Feb. 26, 2025, Texas health officials announced the death of a child in a measles outbreak – the first measles death in the United States since 2015. The outbreak was first identified in early February in Gaines County, Texas, where just 82% of kindergartners are vaccinated against measles, compared with 93% on average across the country. As of Feb. 27, there were at least 124 confirmed cases in Texas and nearby towns in New Mexico.

In an interview with The Conversation U.S. associate health editor Alla Katsnelson, neurologist and medical epidemiologist Daniel Pastula explains why measles is so dangerous and how people and communities can protect themselves from the virus.

What is measles, and where does it come from?

Measles is an ancient disease caused by a virus that probably evolved in cattle and jumped into humans around 500 B.C. One of the first written accounts of it comes from a Persian physician named Rhazes in the ninth century C.E., and measles epidemics were described in medieval Europe and western Asia regularly beginning around 1100-1200. The virus got brought over to the Americas in the 1500s, and it wiped out large populations of native people as Europeans colonized the continent.

By the 1950s in the United States, there were 500,000 reported cases of measles each year – though the true number was probably closer to 4 million . It was so contagious, every kid was thought to have gotten measles by age 15. At that time, measles caused close to 50,000 hospitalizations annually and about 500 deaths, usually in children. It also caused over 1,000 cases of severe brain inflammation every year.

The first measles vaccine became available in 1963, and scientists improved it over the following decades, causing the number of cases to plummet. In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the U.S.

Since then, there have been occasional minor flare-ups, usually brought in by international travelers, but by and large, measles outbreaks have been rare. No one had died of it in the United States in nearly a decade.

Today, measles infections in the U.S. are almost completely preventable with vaccination.

What are the typical symptoms of measles?

About 10 to 14 days after infection, people suffering from measles experience a very high fever, cold-like symptoms including a runny nose and sneezing, and eye inflammation called conjunctivitis.

Next, they may develop white spots called Koplik spots inside their mouth and a diffuse, spotty, red rash that starts at the head and neck, then descends across the entire body. This rash is where the disease gets its name – the word “measles” is thought to come from a medieval Dutch word for “little blemishes.”

Symptoms of measles infection take about three weeks to resolve. People are contagious from about four days before symptoms emerge to four days after the rash starts.

What are the possible severe outcomes of measles?

Epidemiologists estimate that 1 in 5 people who are infected with measles get sick enough to be hospitalized. About 1 in 10 develop ear infections, some of which may result in permanent deafness.

About 1 in 20 people develop severe measles pneumonia, which causes trouble breathing. Reports from west Texas this month suggest that many infected children there have measles pneumonia.

About 1 in 1,000 people develop severe brain swelling. Both measles pneumonia and brain swelling can be fatal. About 3 in 1,000 people die after contracting measles.

In about 1 in 10,000 who get sick with measles and recover from it, the virus lies dormant in the brain for about a decade. It then can reactivate, causing a severe, progressive dementia called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is fatal within one to three years. There is no treatment or cure for the disease. I have seen a couple of suspected cases of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, and none of these patients survived, despite our best efforts.

Given how contagious measles is and how severe the outcomes can be, physicians and public health experts are gravely concerned right now.

How does measles spread?

Measles is one of the most contagious infectious diseases on the planet. The virus is so infectious that if you are in a room with an infected person and you are not vaccinated and have never had measles before, you have a 90% chance of becoming infected.

The measles virus is transmitted by droplets released into the air by infected people when they cough, sneeze or simply breathe. Virus particles can survive suspended in the air or on indoor surfaces for up to two hours, so people can get infected by touching a surface carrying virus particles and then touching their face.

Who should get the measles vaccine, and how effective is it?

The vaccine for measles has historically been called the MMR vaccine because it has been bundled with vaccines for two other diseases – mumps and rubella. Most children in the U.S. receive it as a two-dose regimen, which is 97% effective against measles.

Children generally get the first dose of the vaccine at 12-15 months old and the second dose when they are 4-6 years old. Infants who haven’t reached their first birthday generally do not receive it since their immune system is not yet fully developed and they do not develop quite as robust of an immune response. In an emergency, though, babies as young as 6 to 9 months old can be vaccinated. If an infant’s mother previously received the MMR vaccine or had been infected herself as a child, her transferred antibodies probably offer some protection, but this wanes in the months after birth.

People born before 1957 are considered immune without getting the vaccine because measles was so widespread at that time that everyone was presumed to have been infected. However, certain people in this age group, such as some health care workers, may wish to discuss vaccination with their providers. And some people who had the original version of the vaccine in the 1960s may need to get revaccinated, as the original vaccine was not as effective as the later versions.

Based on available evidence, the vaccine is effective for life, so people who received two doses are most likely protected.

A single dose of the vaccine is 93% effective. Most people vaccinated before 1989 got just one dose. That year, an outbreak in vaccinated children with one dose spurred public health officials to begin recommending two doses.

People with certain risk factors who received only one dose, and everyone who has never received a dose, should talk to their health care providers about getting vaccinated. Because the vaccine is a live but weakened version of the virus, those who are severely immunocompromised or are currently pregnant cannot get it.

People who are immunocompromised, which includes those who have chronic conditions such as autoimmune disorders, are undergoing certain cancer treatments or have received an organ transplant, are more susceptible to measles even if they have been vaccinated.

In the current measles epidemic in Texas, the vast majority of people falling ill are unvaccinated. Public health officials there are urging unvaccinated people in affected areas to get vaccinated.

What measures can protect communities from measles outbreaks?

Vaccination is the best way to protect individuals and communities from measles. It’s also the most effective way to curb an ongoing outbreak.

High rates of vaccination are important because of a phenomenon called herd immunity. When people who are vaccinated do not get infected, it essentially stops the spread of the virus, thereby protecting those who are most susceptible to getting sick. When herd immunity wanes, the risk of infection rises for everyone – and especially for the most vulnerable, such as young children and people who are immunocompromised.

Because measles is so contagious, estimates suggest that 95% of the population must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Once vaccine coverage falls below that percentage, outbreaks are possible.

Having robust public health systems also provides protection from outbreaks and limits their spread. Public health workers can detect cases before an outbreak occurs and take preventive steps. During a measles outbreak, they provide updates and information, administer vaccines, track cases and oversee quarantine for people who have been exposed and isolation for people who are contagious.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Pastula, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Read more:

• Measles is one of the deadliest and most contagious infectious diseases – and one of the most easily preventable
• CDC layoffs strike deeply at its ability to respond to the current flu, norovirus and measles outbreaks and other public health emergencies
• If my measles shot was years ago, am I still protected? 5 questions answered

Daniel Pastula does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Young children are especially vulnerable to measles. Bilanol via Getty Images

The post Texas reports first measles death in nearly a decade, sparking concern appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .