Luigi Mangione , the 26-year-old accused of shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson , made a fashion statement in court today with his maroon sweater, causing a stir on social media. Observers are drawing comparisons to the Menendez brothers' trial , speculating whether Mangione's attire is a deliberate nod or a media tactic focusing on his appearance. Despite serious charges, Mangione has garnered public sympathy recently. He entered a not-guilty plea and is set for trial on February 21. SNL blasted for 'shameful' moment when audience cheers for Luigi Mangione Luigi Mangione and Sean 'Diddy' Comb's lawyers share unexpected connection Mangione's defense may be playing up his image as a sophisticated, well-educated man from a wealthy background. The buzz around his sartorial choice, including a tweet from @voyagerdescend saying "NOT THE MENENDEZ SWEATER???" indicates that every move by Mangione might be carefully calculated. While some observers draw parallels to the Menendez case, others are not as persuaded, though they agree that Mangione's legal team is capitalizing on the media hype, particularly regarding his appearance. @Jeazous commented: "They gave bro a total makeover to impress the girls." @RedditEchoChmbr chimed in with: "I don't support what he did but this guy has balls. His charisma is off the charts." DON'T MISS... Security firms report 'uptick in calls since CEO shooting' as execs terrified [NEWS] CEO 'assassin' Luigi Mangione locked in same jail as Diddy - and share a lawyer [LATEST] Chris Rock brutally compares UnitedHealthcare CEO murder to drug dealer [COMMENT] Like Mangione, the Menendez Brothers, Lyle and Erik, are incarcerated for the first-degree murder of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez. They alleged in court that they were victims of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of their father and claimed the killings were in self-defense. The brothers were given life sentences in 1996, but last year, their attorney submitted a habeas corpus that might overturn their convictions. The new petition suggests that the brothers have fresh evidence, including a letter from Erik to his uncle describing the abuse by their father.Should AI be used to resurrect extinct species like the Neanderthal? | Mohammad HosseiniWASHINGTON—President Joe Biden delivered a speech on Dec. 10 highlighting his economic achievements as he nears the final days of his presidency. He also expressed hope that the incoming Trump administration would “preserve and build on” his progress. Biden delivered his remarks at the Brookings Institution in Washington, defending his economic plan, which focuses on “growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up.” “We got back to full employment, got inflation back down, and managed a soft landing that most people thought was not very much likely to happen,” Biden said. “Most economists agree a new administration is going to inherit a fairly strong economy.” Biden said that his agenda, which prioritized investing in infrastructure and manufacturing, has not yet been fully felt by Americans but that its benefits will become more visible over the coming years. “I know it’s been hard for many Americans to see, and I understand it,” he said. He defended his economic record by saying that he took over the economy during a financial crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and transformed it into the “strongest economy in the world.” He stated that his goal was not simply to get the United States out of the economic crisis but also to put the country on a stronger course for the future. “After decades of sending jobs overseas for the cheapest labor possible, companies are coming back to America, investing and building here and creating jobs here in America,” Biden said. Biden’s approval ratings have fallen amid criticism over his handling of the economy, the Israel–Hamas war, and the U.S. border crisis. Recently, he also faced backlash for pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, after having said on multiple occasions that he wouldn’t, a move that drew criticism even from members of his party. The website is packed with information, including economic statistics, charts, and testimonies from people who say they thrived under his administration. It also includes links to seven media pieces that praise Biden’s economic record. The website’s opening page title states, “Building back from a financial crisis to the strongest economy in the world.” One of the charts shows that under Biden, cumulative GDP growth was 12.6 percent, surpassing the recorded growth under former President Barack Obama’s first and second terms (6.1 percent and 10.4 percent, respectively) and President-elect Donald Trump’s first term (7.6 percent). “After decades of trickle-down economics that slashed taxes for the wealthy, diminished public investments, offshored jobs and factories, destroyed unions, and ripped at the social safety net, President Biden has written a new playbook that’s growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up,” the White House said in a statement ahead of Biden’s speech. During his remarks, Biden highlighted key actions he took during his presidency, which he believes are pivotal in rebuilding the economy for the long term. He expressed hope that the incoming Trump administration “will preserve and build on this progress.” Biden took aim at Trump’s tax cut proposal, stating that he’s “never been a big fan of trickle-down economics.” Additionally, he criticized Trump’s proposal to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, calling it “a major mistake.” In an effort to create resilient supply chains, the Biden administration also announced on Dec. 10 the allocation of $6.2 billion in direct funding to Micron Technology. The funding is part of the CHIPS Act, which aims to encourage U.S. companies to build new chip manufacturing plants domestically. Micron plans to invest nearly $100 billion in New York and $25 billion in Idaho over the next two decades, according to a statement by the Department of Commerce. This investment “will help the United States grow its share of advanced memory manufacturing from less than 2% today to approximately 10% by 2035,” the department said.
AP News Summary at 1:32 p.m. ESTUnder Armour Inc. Cl A stock outperforms competitors despite losses on the dayOne day, when actor and comedian Rosie O'Donnell was in her 50s, her body ached and her arms felt sore, but she pushed through the pain, not realizing she was having a massive heart attack. She had surgery to put in a stent that saved her life. Shortly after her 2012 heart attack, O'Donnell shared her experience on her blog. During her 2015 television standup special, she spoke about how the experience changed her life. The segment included a heart attack acronym the comedian coined: HEPPP (hot, exhausted, pain, pale, puke). O'Donnell's candidness about her heart attack helped spread awareness about how it can present differently in women. She's one of countless celebrities over the years who have opened up about their health conditions, including breast cancer, HIV, depression, heart disease and stroke. When celebrities reveal and discuss their health issues, the impact can be far-reaching. It not only helps to educate the public, but it also can reduce stigma and inspire others. "Health disclosures by celebrities do matter, and we know this from decades of research across a lot of different health conditions and public figures," said Dr. Jessica Gall Myrick, a professor of health communication at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. "They absolutely do influence people." Some of the earliest celebrity health disclosures happened in the 1970s and 1980s with U.S. presidents and first ladies. When first lady Betty Ford was diagnosed with breast cancer just weeks after Gerald Ford became president in 1974, she spoke openly about her diagnosis, inviting photographers into the White House and helping make talk of cancer less taboo. In 1987, first lady Nancy Reagan used her breast cancer diagnosis as a chance to advocate for women to get mammograms. Her disclosure came two years after President Ronald Reagan's colon cancer diagnosis, about which the couple was equally as vocal. "Individuals throughout the country have been calling cancer physicians and information services in record numbers," the Los Angeles Times reported after Nancy Reagan's widely publicized surgery. The public showed a similar interest years earlier following Betty Ford's mastectomy. Another major milestone in celebrity health disclosures came in 1991, when 32-year-old NBA superstar Earvin "Magic" Johnson revealed he had tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. "Life is going to go on for me, and I'm going to be a happy man," Johnson assured fans during a news conference. He immediately retired, only to return to the Los Angeles Lakers in 1996. His disclosure, along with his work as an advocate for safe sex, helped shatter stigmas around HIV and AIDS. Calls to testing centers increased significantly in the days and weeks after Johnson's announcement. "That celebrity disclosure really helped people see there was a wider susceptibly to HIV," Gall Myrick said. "People were more likely to say, 'I need to think about my own risks.' It was very powerful." When it comes to heart and stroke health, President Dwight Eisenhower helped make heart attacks less frightening and mysterious. During a news conference in 1955, millions of Americans learned from the president's doctors about his heart condition, his treatment, and concrete steps they could take to reduce their own heart attack risk. Other notable figures have shared their health experiences over the years. Soap opera legend Susan Lucci , who was diagnosed with heart disease in 2018, has advocated for women's heart health. Basketball great Kareem Abdul Jabbar talks about his irregular heartbeat, known as atrial fibrillation, and advocates for regular health screenings. Lawyer, author and television personality Star Jones continues to speak about heart disease risk after having lifesaving heart surgery in 2010. Longtime TV and radio personality Dick Clark brought stroke and aphasia into the national spotlight when he returned to hosting "New Year's Rockin' Eve" in Times Square just a year after his 2004 stroke and continued until his death in 2012. And actor and comedian Jamie Foxx recently revealed he had a stroke last year. "Celebrity disclosures represent teachable moments," said Dr. Seth M. Noar, director of the Communicating for Health Impact Lab at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. "Searches for different health conditions often spike in the wake of these types of announcements. They cause people to think about these health issues, learn more about them, and in some cases change their behaviors." Celebrities have also highlighted the importance of CPR and the use of an automated external defibrillator, or AED, to restore a person's heartbeat if they experience cardiac arrest. Interest in CPR and AEDs spiked in 2023 after Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin went into cardiac arrest during an NFL game broadcast on national TV. Views of the American Heart Association's hands-only CPR pages jumped more than 600% in the days following Hamlin's cardiac arrest. Three months later, around 3 million people had watched the AHA's CPR video. Family members of celebrities who have died from a heart issue have also spread awareness. After actor John Ritter died of an undiagnosed aortic dissection in 2003, his wife, actor Amy Yasbeck, started the Ritter Foundation to raise awareness about the condition and help others avoid a misdiagnosis. A literature review published in Systematic Reviews in 2017 found that people are conditioned to react positively to celebrity advice. Research also has found that people often follow advice from celebrities who match how they perceive – or how they want to perceive – themselves. The most effective celebrity disclosures are frequently the ones that tell a compelling story and include clear steps people can take to apply lessons the celebrity learned to their own health situation, Gall Myrick said. "People are more likely to take action when they feel confident and capable." Research has shown that celebrity disclosures often impact calls to hotlines and page views on health-related websites, and they can spark behavioral and even policy changes. Anecdotally, Gall Myrick said, people ask their doctor more questions about health conditions and request medical screenings. Celebrities can have a big impact because people tend to have parasocial relationships with them, Gall Myrick said. These are one-sided relationships in which a person feels an emotional connection with another person, often a celebrity. People may feel as if they know the basketball player they've watched on the court for years, or the Hollywood actor they've followed, she said. They want to comfort them after a health disclosure. Social media has only increased this feeling of familiarity, as celebrities regularly share mundane – but fascinating – details of their daily lives, like what they eat for breakfast, their favorite socks, or the meditation they do before bed. "We spend a lifetime being exposed to celebrities through the media, and over time, you get to know these public figures," Gall Myrick said. "Some feel like friendships." A study published in the journal Science Communication in 2020 compared reactions to actor Tom Hanks, who had COVID-19 early in the pandemic, and an average person with COVID-19. Researchers found that participants identified more with Hanks when it came to estimating their own susceptibility to COVID-19. The participants also felt more emotional about the virus that causes COVID-19 when thinking about it in relation to Hanks versus an average person. When a celebrity reveals a health condition, it's a surprise that may feel personal, especially if they are well-liked and the health issue is dramatic and sudden. "We feel like we know them, and the emotional response is what can then push people out of their routine," Gall Myrick said. Noar said a celebrity health story is often a more interesting and powerful way to learn about a health condition than just the facts, which can feel overwhelming. People are drawn to the slew of media coverage that typically follows a celebrity disclosure, he said. "Some of these high-visibility public figures' stories are now woven into some of these illnesses," Noar said. For example, Angelina Jolie is often linked to the BRCA1 gene mutation after the actor shared she had a preventive double mastectomy because of her elevated breast cancer risk and had her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed because of her increased risk for ovarian cancer. "It's a narrative, a story that humanizes the condition in a way that very informational communication really doesn't," Noar said. "People remember it, and it can potentially be a touch point." After a disclosure, patients may bring up a celebrity's story during a doctor's appointment and connect it to their own care. Today's multiplatform digital culture only amplifies celebrity messages. "You're seeing everyday people react to these events, and that can have a ripple effect too," Gall Myrick said. "We know from research that seeing messages more than once can be impactful. Often it's not just one billboard or one commercial that impacts behavior; it's the drip drip drip over time." Still, there's a cautionary tale to be told around the impact of celebrity health news, especially if the celebrity has died. An unclear cause of death may lead to speculation. Gall Myrick said that guesswork could potentially end up hurting rather than helping if patients were to act on misinformation or a lack of information. "Maybe the death was atypical or it needs more context," she said. "That's where advocacy groups and public health organizations come in. They need to be prepared for announcements or disclosures about celebrity deaths, and to fill in some of those gaps." American Heart Association News covers heart and brain health. Not all views expressed in this story reflect the official position of the American Heart Association. Copyright is owned or held by the American Heart Association, Inc., and all rights are reserved. Sign up here to get the latest health & fitness updates in your inbox every week!Donald Trump is returning to the world stage. So is his trolling
As science continues its evolution, discoveries and technologies can act like a master key that open doors leading to novel advancements. Artificial intelligence is one such key, making innovations possible by solving complex problems, automating tasks and enabling research that would have been impossible, or very time-consuming, without it. Mohammad Hosseini But do we want to do research on all topics, and shall we try the AI master key on every door? To explore this question, let’s consider the use of AI by genomics experts as an example. In recent years, genomics experts have added unbelievable depth to what we know about the world and ourselves. For example, genetics researchers have revealed facts about when certain animals and plants were domesticated. In another example, researchers used DNA from 30,000-year-old permafrost to create fertile samples of a plant called narrow-leafed campion. Importantly, genetic engineering has facilitated extraordinary advances in the treatment of complicated conditions, such as sickle-cell anemia. Thanks to AI, we are witnessing a dramatic increase in the pace and scalability of genomic exploration. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | RSS Feed | SoundStack | All Of Our Podcasts But given the risks and possible consequences of AI use in science, should we rush headlong into using AI in all kinds of projects? One relevant example is research on Neanderthals, our closest relatives, who lived about 40,000 years ago. Neanderthals have been studied for several years now through genetic investigation of their fossils and their DNA. Genetic engineering can potentially use ancient DNA and genome editing methods to re-create a Neanderthal or aspects of a Neanderthal’s genetics and physiology. To do this, scientists could start by figuring out the DNA sequence of a Neanderthal by comparing it with the DNA of modern humans, because they are closely related. Then, scientists could use the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR to swap out parts of human DNA with Neanderthal DNA. This process would require a lot of trial and error and might not succeed soon. But based on what we know about genetics, if something is possible, AI can help make it happen faster, cheaper and with less effort. Scientists are excited about these developments because they could facilitate new discoveries and open up many research opportunities in genetic research. With or without AI, research on Neanderthals will proceed. But the extraordinary power of AI could give the final push to these discoveries and facilitate this kind of resurrection. At that point, the scientific community must develop norms and guidelines about how to treat these resurrected beings with dispositions very similar to humans. We would need to carefully consider their rights and well-being almost in the same way as when humans are involved and not as research subjects or artifacts of scientific curiosity. These ethical issues are discussed in more detail in a new paper published in the journal Nature Machine Intelligence. A more holistic question to consider is: Should we prioritize the use of resource-intensive AI, researchers’ time and public funds to resurrect extinct beings? Or should we invest these resources into conserving species that are critically endangered today to prevent biodiversity from more degradation?
Why 'Wicked' Shouldn't Have Been Divided Into 2 Parts
KYIV, Ukraine — NATO and Ukraine will hold emergency talks Tuesday after Russia attacked a central city with an experimental, hypersonic ballistic missile. escalating the nearly 33-month-old war. The conflict is “entering a decisive phase,” Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday, and “taking on very dramatic dimensions.” Ukraine’s parliament canceled a session as security was tightened following Thursday’s Russian strike on a military facility in the city of Dnipro. In a stark warning to the West, President Vladimir Putin said in a nationally televised speech the attack with the intermediate-range Oreshnik missile was in retaliation for Kyiv’s use of U.S. and British longer-range missiles capable of striking deeper into Russian territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks Friday during a meeting with the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense, representatives of the military-industrial complex and developers of missile systems at the Kremlin in Moscow. Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik Putin said Western air defense systems would be powerless to stop the new missile. People are also reading... Ukrainian military officials said the missile that hit Dnipro reached a speed of Mach 11 and carried six nonnuclear warheads, each releasing six submunitions. Speaking Friday to military and weapons industries officials, Putin said Russia will launch production of the Oreshnik. “No one in the world has such weapons,” he said. “Sooner or later, other leading countries will also get them. We are aware that they are under development. “We have this system now,” he added. “And this is important.” Putin said that while it isn’t an intercontinental missile, it’s so powerful that the use of several of them fitted with conventional warheads in one attack could be as devastating as a strike with strategic — or nuclear — weapons. Gen. Sergei Karakayev, head of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, said the Oreshnik could reach targets across Europe and be fitted with nuclear or conventional warheads, echoing Putin’s claim that even with conventional warheads, “the massive use of the weapon would be comparable in effect to the use of nuclear weapons.” In this photo taken from a video released Friday, a Russian serviceman operates at an undisclosed location in Ukraine. Russian Defense Ministry Press Service Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov kept up Russia's bellicose tone on Friday, blaming “the reckless decisions and actions of Western countries” in supplying weapons to Ukraine to strike Russia. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack | All Of Our Podcasts "The Russian side has clearly demonstrated its capabilities, and the contours of further retaliatory actions in the event that our concerns were not taken into account have also been quite clearly outlined," he said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, widely seen as having the warmest relations with the Kremlin in the European Union, echoed Moscow’s talking points, suggesting the use of U.S.-supplied weapons in Ukraine likely requires direct American involvement. “These are rockets that are fired and then guided to a target via an electronic system, which requires the world’s most advanced technology and satellite communications capability,” Orbán said on state radio. “There is a strong assumption ... that these missiles cannot be guided without the assistance of American personnel.” Orbán cautioned against underestimating Russia’s responses, emphasizing that the country’s recent modifications to its nuclear deployment doctrine should not be dismissed as a “bluff.” “It’s not a trick ... there will be consequences,” he said. Czech Republic's Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky speaks to journalists Friday during a joint news conference with Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andriiy Sybiha in Kyiv, Ukraine. Evgeniy Maloletka, Associated Press Separately in Kyiv, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský called Thursday’s missile strike an “escalatory step and an attempt of the Russian dictator to scare the population of Ukraine and to scare the population of Europe.” At a news conference with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, Lipavský also expressed his full support for delivering the necessary additional air defense systems to protect Ukrainian civilians from the “heinous attacks.” He said the Czech Republic will impose no limits on the use of its weapons and equipment given to Ukraine. Three lawmakers from Ukraine's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, confirmed that Friday's previously scheduled session was called off due to the ongoing threat of Russian missiles targeting government buildings in central Kyiv. In addition, there also was a recommendation to limit the work of all commercial offices and nongovernmental organizations "in that perimeter, and local residents were warned of the increased threat,” said lawmaker Mykyta Poturaiev, who said it's not the first time such a threat has been received. Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate said the Oreshnik missile was fired from the Kapustin Yar 4th Missile Test Range in Russia’s Astrakhan region and flew 15 minutes before striking Dnipro. Test launches of a similar missile were conducted in October 2023 and June 2024, the directorate said. The Pentagon confirmed the missile was a new, experimental type of intermediate-range missile based on its RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile. Thursday's attack struck the Pivdenmash plant that built ICBMs when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. The military facility is located about 4 miles southwest of the center of Dnipro, a city of about 1 million that is Ukraine’s fourth-largest and a key hub for military supplies and humanitarian aid, and is home to one of the country’s largest hospitals for treating wounded soldiers from the front before their transfer to Kyiv or abroad. From tuberculosis to heart disease: How the leading causes of death in America have changed From tuberculosis to heart disease: How the leading causes of death in America have changed We're all going to die someday. Still, how it happens—and when—can point to a historical moment defined by the scientific advancements and public health programs available at the time to contain disease and prevent accidents.In the early 1900s, America's efforts to improve sanitation, hygiene, and routine vaccinations were still in their infancy. Maternal and infant mortality rates were high, as were contagious diseases that spread between people and animals.Combined with the devastation of two World Wars—and the Spanish Flu pandemic in between—the leading causes of death changed significantly after this period. So, too, did the way we diagnose and control the spread of disease.Starting with reforms as part of Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, massive-scale, federal interventions in the U.S. eventually helped stave off disease transmission. It took comprehensive government programs and the establishment of state and local health agencies to educate the public on preventing disease transmission.Seemingly simple behavioral shifts, such as handwashing, were critical in thwarting the spread of germs, much like discoveries in medicine, such as vaccines, and increased access to deliver them across geographies. Over the course of the 20th century, life expectancy increased by 56% and is estimated to keep increasing slightly, according to an annual summary of vital statistics published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2000.Death Records examined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to see how the leading causes of death in America have evolved over time and to pinpoint how some major mortality trends have dropped off. Smith Collection/Gado // Getty Images Infectious diseases lead causes of death in America According to a report published in the journal Annual Review of Public Health in 2000, pneumonia was the leading cause of death in the early 1900s, accounting for nearly 1 in 4 deaths.By the time World War I ended in 1918, during which people and animals were housed together for long periods, a new virus emerged: the Spanish Flu. Originating in a bird before spreading to humans, the virus killed 10 times as many Americans as the war. Many died of secondary pneumonia after the initial infection. Pneumonia deaths eventually plummeted throughout the century, partly prevented by increased flu vaccine uptake rates in high-risk groups, particularly older people.Per the CDC, tuberculosis was a close second leading cause of death, killing 194 of every 10,000 people in 1900, mainly concentrated in dense urban areas where the infection could more easily spread. Eventually, public health interventions led to drastic declines in mortality from the disease, such as public education, reducing crowded housing, quarantining people with active disease, improving hygiene, and using antibiotics. Once the death rates lagged, so did the public health infrastructure built to control the disease, leading to a resurgence in the mid-1980s.Diarrhea was the third leading cause of death in 1900, surging every summer among children before the impacts of the pathogen died out in 1930. Adopting water filtration, better nutrition, and improved refrigeration were all associated with its decline.In the 1940s and 1950s, polio outbreaks killed or paralyzed upward of half a million people worldwide every year. Even at its peak, polio wasn't a leading cause of death, it was a much-feared one, particularly among parents of young children, some of whom kept them from crowded public places and interacting with other children.By 1955, when Jonah Salk discovered the polio vaccine, the U.S. had ended the "golden age of medicine." During this period, the causes of mortality shifted dramatically as scientists worldwide began to collaborate on infectious disease control, surgical techniques, vaccines, and other drugs. Death Records Leading causes of death tip toward lifestyle-related disease From the 1950s onward, once quick-spreading deadly contagions weren't prematurely killing American residents en masse, scientists also began to understand better how to diagnose and treat these diseases. As a result, Americans were living longer lives and instead succumbing to noncommunicable diseases, or NCDs.The risk of chronic diseases increased with age and, in some cases, was exacerbated by unhealthy lifestyles. Cancer and heart disease shot up across the century, increasing 90-fold from 1900 to 1998, according to CDC data.Following the post-Spanish Flu years, heart disease killed more Americans than any other cause, peaking in the 1960s and contributing to 1 in 3 deaths. Cigarette smoking rates peaked at the same time, a major risk factor for heart disease. Obesity rates also rose, creating another risk factor for heart disease and many types of cancers.This coincides with the introduction of ultra-processed foods into diets, which plays a more significant role in larger waistlines than the increasing predominance of sedentary work and lifestyles.In the early 1970s, deaths from heart disease began to fall as more Americans prevented and managed their risk factors, like quitting smoking or taking blood pressure medicine. However, the disease remains the biggest killer of Americans.Cancer remains the second leading cause of death and rates still indicate an upward trajectory over time. Only a few types of cancer are detected early by screening, and some treatments for aggressive cancers like glioblastoma—the most common type of brain cancer—have also stalled, unable to improve prognosis much over time.In recent years, early-onset cancers, those diagnosed before age 50 or sometimes even earlier, have seen a drastic rise among younger Americans. While highly processed foods and sedentary lifestyles may contribute to rising rates, a spike in cancer rates among otherwise healthy young individuals has baffled some medical professionals.This follows the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020. At its peak, high transmission rates made the virus the third leading cause of death in America. It's often compared to the Spanish Flu of 1918, though COVID-19 had a far larger global impact, spurring international collaborations among scientists who developed a vaccine in an unprecedented time.Public policy around issues of safety and access also influences causes of death, particularly—and tragically—among young Americans. Gun control measures in the U.S. are far less stringent than in peer nations; compared to other nations, however, the U.S. leads in gun violence. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens (around 2 in 3 are homicides, and 1 in 3 are suicides), and deaths from opioids remain a leading cause of death among younger people.Globally, the leading causes of death mirror differences in social and geographic factors. NCDs are primarily associated with socio-economic status and comprise 7 out of 10 leading causes of death, 85% of those occurring in low- and middle-income countries, according to the World Health Organization.However, one of the best health measures is life expectancy at birth. People in the U.S. have been living longer lives since 2000, except for a slight dip in longevity due to COVID-19. According to the most recent CDC estimates, Americans' life expectancy is 77.5 years on average and is expected to increase slightly in the coming decades.Story editing by Alizah Salario. Additional editing by Kelly Glass. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick.This story originally appeared on Death Records and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio. Canva Be the first to know
Atlassian CEO Cannon-Brookes sells $2.19 million in stockDonald Trump is returning to the world stage. So is his trolling