1 in 5 people say losing their pet was worse than losing a person

The grief is very real

By Fiona Brook

Edited by Sadie Harley, reviewed by Robert Egan

ICE Queen Kristi Noem has no such regrets

For one in five people, losing a pet has been more distressing than losing a human loved one. New research has revealed that 21% of those who experienced both types of bereavement found their pet's death harder to bear.

The findings challenge how society views pet loss. It's often dismissed as "disenfranchised grief"—a type of mourning that isn't socially recognized or validated in the same way as other bereavements.

Yet for most pet owners, their animals are family. A 2025 survey by the animal charity RSPCA found that 99% consider their pets part of the family rather than "just a pet." On Instagram, #dogsarefamily alone has 3.4 million posts.

The latest study of 975 British adults revealed something striking. Around 7.5% of people who'd lost pets met clinical criteria for "prolonged grief disorder"—comparable to rates following many human deaths. The work is published in the journal PLOS One.

Grief typically involves a range of emotions including anger, denial, relief, guilt and sadness. Prolonged grief disorder, however, is more severe—the psychiatrists' diagnostic manual, the DSM-V, defines it as "intense and persistent grief symptoms which are not only distressing in themselves but also associated with problems in functioning" lasting 12 months or more after a loss.

Currently, only human deaths qualify for this diagnosis. But the research, led by Philip Hyland of Maynooth University in Ireland, found no measurable differences in how prolonged grief disorder symptoms manifest, whether the loss involves a person or a pet.

Pet loss actually accounted for 8.1% of all prolonged grief disorder cases in the study—a higher proportion than many types of human losses. Those who had lost a pet were 27% more likely to develop prolonged grief disorder symptoms than those who hadn't.

That figure sits between the rates for losing a parent (31%) and losing a sibling (21%). It's higher than the rates for losing a close friend or other family member.

Hunker down!

Trump files federal appeal to overturn court order blocking his crusade against New England wind energy

Trump's relentless hatred for wind energy

By Anastasia E. Lennon, Rhode Island Current

This story first appeared in The New Bedford Light. Read the original version here.

The Trump administration has appealed a December ruling that struck down a presidential memorandum barring offshore wind leasing and permitting. 

Judge Patti B. Saris had declared the wind memo, issued by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office, unlawful. But on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal. 

It comes one week after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the administration would “absolutely” appeal other court rulings issued in January and February that lifted the federal suspension orders on five under-construction offshore wind projects, including Vineyard Wind.

Those suspensions were issued shortly after Saris’ ruling on the wind memo. At this time, the federal government has not appealed those project-specific lawsuits.

“President Trump has been clear: wind energy is the scam of the century. For years, Americans have been forced to pay billions more for the least reliable source of energy. The Trump administration has paused the construction of all large-scale offshore wind projects because our number one priority is to put America First and protect the national security of the American people,” said Taylor Rogers, White House spokesperson, in an email Wednesday. “The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

Trump set up a private bank account in Qatar for the billions we are taking in Venezuelan oil out of the reach of oversight

But he's wrong to think he's in control of Venezuela

Maybe all he wanted was the oil money

by Alix Breeden, Daily Kos Staff

According to Donald Trump, the U.S. and Venezuela are on extremely good terms a month after arresting Nicolás Maduro and transporting the president and his wife, Cilia Flores, to a prison in New York City. 

“Relations between Venezuela and the United States have been, to put it mildly, extraordinary!” Trump wrote via Truth Social Thursday. “We are dealing very well with President Delcy Rodriguez, and her Representatives. Oil is starting to flow, and large amounts of money, unseen for many years, will soon be greatly helping the people of Venezuela.”

However, according to an interview with NBC News released the same day, Rodriguez—who succeeded to power following Maduro’s capture—disagrees with the U.S. perspective. 

“I can tell you President Nicolás Maduro is the legitimate president. I will tell you this as a lawyer, that I am. Both President Maduro and Cilia Flores, the first lady, are both innocent,” the acting president said to “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker in Caracas. 

Rodriguez also told the outlet that the Trump administration has extended an invitation to meet at the White House that she is still considering. 

But the change in temperatures from Trump’s and Rodriguez’s responses highlights the larger, more unstable narrative at play.

The South American country is but one domino piece targeted in the president’s “Donroe Doctrine,” the Trumpified Monroe Doctrine. Venezuela’s oil and its long-term standoff with Maduro made it a prime target under the Trump administration to enforce U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere. 

Crime guide

Bobby Jr. posts bizarre video of himself and Kid Rock exercising and drinking mail

See the video here: Secretary Kennedy on X: "I’ve teamed up with @KidRock to deliver two simple messages to the American people: GET ACTIVE + EAT REAL FOOD. https://t.co/PkK8IfkPU4" / X

A loud minority makes the Internet look far more toxic than it is

Not everyone on the internet is a jerk, though many are

PNAS Nexus 

A vocal minority online creates the illusion that toxicity is everywhere. When people learn the truth, their outlook on society becomes more positive almost immediately. Credit: Shutterstock

Americans tend to believe that online spaces are far more hostile than they actually are. Many assume that nearly half of people on major platforms regularly post cruel, aggressive, or abusive comments. In reality, truly severe online toxicity is much rarer. 

One striking example is Reddit, where Americans estimate that 43% of users post highly toxic comments, even though research shows the real figure is closer to just 3%. This gap between perception and reality can quietly fuel a broader sense of pessimism about other people and about society as a whole.

To better understand this disconnect, researchers Angela Y. Lee, Eric Neumann, and their colleagues surveyed 1,090 American adults using the online research platform CloudResearch Connect. The goal was to compare what people believe about harmful online behavior with actual data collected in previous large-scale studies of social media platforms.

The results showed that people dramatically overestimate how common toxic behavior is. On Reddit, participants believed toxic commenters were 13 times more common than they truly are. A similar pattern appeared on Facebook. Participants guessed that 47% of users share false or misleading news stories, even though existing research suggests the real number is about 8.5%. In other words, people assume that misinformation and harmful content dominate social media feeds far more than they actually do.

Closing in on a universal vaccine

Nasal spray protects mice from respiratory viruses, bacteria and allergens

By Stanford University Medical Center

Edited by Sadie Harley, reviewed by Robert Egan

Bobby Jr. has a different idea about what to put up your nose

In the realm of medical advancements, a universal vaccine that can protect against any pathogen has long been a Holy Grail—and about as elusive as a mythological vessel. But Stanford Medicine researchers and collaborators have taken an astonishing step forward in that quest, surprising even themselves.

In a new study in mice, they have developed a universal vaccine formula that protects against a wide range of respiratory viruses, bacteria and even allergens. The vaccine is delivered intranasally—such as through a nasal spray—and provides broad protection in the lungs for several months.

In the study, published in Science, researchers show that vaccinated mice were protected against SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses, Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii (common hospital-acquired infections), and house dust mites (a common allergen).

In fact, the new vaccine has worked for a remarkably wide spectrum of respiratory threats the researchers have tested, said Bali Pulendran, Ph.D., the Violetta L. Horton Professor II and a professor of microbiology and immunology who is the study's senior author. The lead author of the study is Haibo Zhang, Ph.D., a postdoctoral scholar in Pulendran's lab.

If translated into humans, such a vaccine could replace multiple jabs every year for seasonal respiratory infections and be on hand should a new pandemic virus emerge.

Charlestown is about to get whacked by Mother Nature

69% odds of getting 8 inches or more of snow and mess

And it could be worse

By Will Collette

Last Wednesday, it looked like Charlestown would have yet another messy weekend, but no Snowmaggedon. Since then, the storm track changed and the bad weather seems to be developing into the dreaded "Bomb Cyclone (bombogenesis)" traditionally know to us as a very nasty Nor'easter. 

NOAA's experimental website shows the snow range for us at 7-17 inches.

The National Weather Service forecast for Charlestown shows a slightly higher snowfall range of between 10 inches and 18. First flakes are slated to fall tomorrow afternoon with the bomb hitting tomorrow night and all through Monday. Wind gusts could hit 55 mph.

Temperatures are forecast to be at or above freezing during parts of the storm. That could lead to wetter, heavier snow than we had during the last storm a couple of weeks ago. Wet, heavy snow tends to lead to more power outages and to smashed mailboxes.

We're New Englanders so we know how to handle this, right? As long as we've got enough Wonder Bread and milk, we're OK. Fingers crossed.

Magaziner visits ICE detainees at the Wyatt.

Will his fellow congressmen follow suit?

by Philip Eil, Rhode Island Current

U.S. Rep. Seth Magaziner paid an unannounced visit to Rhode Island’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility this week. On Tuesday afternoon, he issued a statement after inspecting the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility, in Central Falls, which holds detainees for the U.S. Marshals Service as well as ICE. It reads, in part:

“As with other inspections I have conducted of ICE and Border Patrol detention facilities, my focus was on assessing the condition of the facility and the ability of detainees to have basic needs met including access to legal counsel, due process, medical services, and nutrition.”

The statement is conspicuously light on details. It makes no mention of what Magaziner saw while inside the facility, or whether the basic needs of the ICE detainees held there are, in fact, being met. (As of the last publicly-disclosed head count in November, there were 110 ICE detainees there, and the population remained over 100 throughout 2025.)

Still, the visit made Magaziner a leader among Rhode Island’s congressional delegation. Members of Congress have statutory authority to make unannounced inspections at ICE facilities. But, though ICE has dominated headlines during Trump’s second term for all manner of scandals and abuses, and although the Wyatt has remained in steady use by the agency, Magaziner appears to be the first among our state’s four delegates to inspect the facility during Trump’s second term.

So I reached out to the other three to see what their plans were. Here’s what the responses were:

A spokesperson for U.S. Rep. Gabe Amo said he plans to visit “soon,” though she did not specify when. 

A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Jack Reed said Reed “has visited Wyatt and other similar facilities in other states before and plans to visit Wyatt again.” He did not specify when Reed had last visited Wyatt.   

A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said Whitehouse “has visited Wyatt in the past and will likely do so again.” She confirmed that he had not visited during Trump’s second term.

RFK Jr. Made Promises in Order to Become Health Secretary. He’s Broken Many of Them.

Biggest lies were about vaccines and research

Amanda Seitz and Hannah Norman, KFF Health News 

Video by Hannah Norman

One year after taking charge of the nation’s health department, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hasn’t held true to many of the promises he made while appealing to U.S. senators concerned about the longtime anti-vaccine activist’s plans for the nation’s care.

Kennedy squeaked through a narrow Senate vote to be confirmed as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, only after making a number of public and private guarantees about how he would handle vaccine funding and recommendations as secretary.

Here’s a look at some of the promises Kennedy made during his confirmation process.

The Childhood Vaccine Schedule

In two hearings in January 2025, Kennedy repeatedly assured senators that he supported childhood vaccines, noting that all his children were vaccinated.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Kennedy about the money he’s made in the private sector from lawsuits against vaccine makers and accused him of planning to profit from potential future policies making it easier to sue.

“Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it,” Warren said during the Senate Finance Committee hearing. “Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy can keep cashing in.”

Warren’s statement prompted an assurance by Kennedy.

“Senator, I support vaccines,” he said. “I support the childhood schedule. I will do that.”

Days later, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, declared Kennedy had pledged to maintain existing vaccine recommendations if confirmed. Cassidy, a physician specializing in liver diseases and a vocal supporter of vaccination, had questioned Kennedy sharply in a hearing about his views on shots.

“If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendations without changes,” Cassidy said during a speech on the Senate floor explaining his vote for Kennedy.

A few months after he was confirmed, Kennedy fired all the incumbent members of the vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, and appointed new members, including several who, like him, oppose some vaccines. The panel’s recommendations soon changed drastically.

Trump's executive order "Restoring Gold Standard Science" was the worst kind of poison: It looks, smells, and tastes exactly like a healthy meal.

How MAHA Exploits the Flaws of Modern Science

By C. Brandon Ogbunu

An old adage tells us that pressure can burst a pipe, but pressure can also make a diamond. It’s a soothing creed for life’s tumult. It applied most directly to me during my past life as a sometimes-boxer by suggesting that the fighter with less talent (me in my youth) can win by smothering their opponent, throwing punches in high volume, and making their foe uncomfortable. Pressure, this pugilistic advice goes, is the best way to expose the fragilities of adversaries.

The analogy applies to the current war on science, now a year old. My academic colleagues and I feel overwhelmed by the never-ending subversion from the Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, movement. We are collectively flummoxed, without a plan of action, and vulnerable to every body blow from an emboldened challenger. The worst consequences of the war on science are not the direct ones, like the funding cuts and the attacks on DEI and free speech. Rather, the most harm comes from the stress imposed by President Donald Trump's health and science leadership, who have nevertheless revealed enormous flaws in the process of science — ones that we could have fixed many moons ago and must fix today if we want science to survive.

In reflecting on the war on science, we should note that there is no silver lining. We shouldn’t accept the notion that the goals of science’s opponents are anything but to maim our scientific machine. Any appeal to the movement’s desire for improved well-being is delusional at best, and is more likely nonsense. We shouldn’t force ourselves to extract meaning from an ordeal. However crude it may sound, “This sucks” is an appropriate response.

But in the midst of our rage, we must confront some major flaws in modern science that have been weaponized against us. And they come to light through the answer to a disquieting question: Why does the public seem largely indifferent to the attacks on science?

Congratulations to new medalists

 

It's just common sense

On February 24, watch this, not the other thing