CIDRAP Unveils Vaccine Integrity Project
A new resource for seekers of independent vaccine science is in the works. The Vaccine Integrity Project, an initiative launched by the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), seeks to fill gaps left by recent federal changes that are altering the dissemination of scientific information, according to a press release by the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
The project is funded by an unrestricted gift from a foundation known as Alumbra, established by philanthropist Christy Walton.
The project aligns with the CIDRAP mission to 'prevent illness and death from targeted infectious disease threats through research and the translation of scientific evidence into real-world, practical applications, policies, and solutions,' according to the press release.
At its outset, the Vaccine Integrity Project has established an eight-member steering committee to help guide clinicians in optimizing protection of the public against vaccine-preventable diseases. The committee plans to hold facilitated, information-gathering sessions in coming months to gauge with actions are needed 'to ensure the integrity of the US vaccine system, including vaccine evaluations and clinical guidelines,' according to the project website.
The Steering Committee is co-chaired by Margaret Hamburg, MD, former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner and co-president of the InterAcademy Partnership, and Harvey Fineberg, MD, current president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and past president of the US National Academy of Medicine, according to the CIDRAP press release.
Help for Clinical Practice and Public Health
'Access to nonbiased, objective, and accurate information would be very helpful, especially in a time where public health initiatives are at risk,' said Shirin Mazumder, MD, infectious diseases specialist in Memphis, Tennessee, in an interview.
Removal of evidence-based medical information from public sources has the potential to further propagate misinformation and prevent the general public from making decisions regarding their health without all of the necessary facts, Mazumder said. 'This has a great potential of harm, especially as it pertains to vaccine-preventable illnesses,' she added.
'As a physician who cares for a large population of patients living with HIV and at risk for HIV, I have concerns regarding how proposed budget cuts to essential programs, such as the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program and Ending the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Initiative, will affect patient care,' Mazumder told Medscape Medical News . 'Young people, gay and bisexual men, and minority populations are disproportionately affected by HIV, and the proposed funding cuts will further marginalize this group and prevent the most vulnerable from accessing HIV education, prevention, testing, care, and treatment,' she said.
'The presence of an independent resource with no political affiliations that can serve as an objective guide to gather information from healthcare professionals, healthcare organizations, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and policymakers is critical to ensure that recommendations are comprehensive,' Mazumder told Medscape Medical News regarding the potential effect of the Vaccine Integrity Project.
Ideally, the feedback gathered by these different groups will assist in creating guidelines rooted in evidence-based practice and provide accurate information to help people make the best decisions pertaining to preventative healthcare, she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Dupixent® (dupilumab) Data at Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Conference Reinforce Use in Atopic Dermatitis Patients with Skin of Color
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic disease that disproportionately impacts communities of color Dupixent achieved 75% or greater improvement in overall disease severity, the primary endpoint, in more than three-quarters of treated patients Patients experienced substantial reductions in hyperpigmentation, dry skin and itch from baseline Results support commitment to enhance clinical understanding of chronic diseases in communities of color TARRYTOWN, N.Y. and PARIS, June 07, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGN) and Sanofi today presented results from the DISCOVER Phase 4, single-arm, open-label trial assessing Dupixent® (dupilumab) in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with skin of color. These are the first clinical trial results for Dupixent in a large population of patients with darker skin tones. The results, along with the Dupixent Phase 3 trials, demonstrated patients taking Dupixent experienced improvements in signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis from baseline across many skin tones. The data were shared in an oral presentation at the 2025 Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Conference. 'Atopic dermatitis, a chronic disease with underlying type 2 inflammation, has a high prevalence and quality of life impact on patients with skin of color. Unique clinical features like darker patches of hyperpigmentation versus redness typically seen on lighter skin may lead to less accurate diagnoses and underestimation of disease severity,' said Andrew Alexis, M.D., M.P.H., Professor of Clinical Dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine. 'The results from the DISCOVER trial showed that Dupixent patients with atopic dermatitis and darker skin not only experienced reduced disease severity and itch but also saw improvements in areas of particular concern including dyspigmentation and dry skin. These data deepen the clinical understanding of atopic dermatitis within this underserved population, including use of newly validated scales.' In the trial, 120 patients with atopic dermatitis and skin of color (82% Black, 11% Asian, 2% American Indian/Alaska Native, 5% Arab, Central American or other) were treated with Dupixent every two weeks using a weight-based dosing regimen. At 24 weeks: The safety results in the DISCOVER trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved dermatological indications. The overall rate of adverse events (AEs; n=124) in the DISCOVER trial was 42%, with the most common (≥2%) AEs being headache (3%), upper respiratory tract infection (2%), eczema (2%), conjunctivitis (3%) and allergic conjunctivitis (2%). About Atopic Dermatitis in Skin of Color Atopic dermatitis is a chronic skin disease with underlying type 2 inflammation that causes intense, persistent itch and skin lesions that cover much of the body, resulting in skin dryness, cracking, pain, crusting and oozing. In patients with skin of color, the type and location of the lesions can vary, and they are more likely to have hardened skin lesions and severe skin dryness, itch, dyspigmentation and greater disease severity than those with lighter skin. Additionally, redness that is observed on lighter skin typically appears as darkened, grey or violet on darker skin tones. Because the disease presents differently in people with skin of color, it can be misdiagnosed or the severity underestimated, which can contribute to higher levels of healthcare resource utilization. About the DISCOVER Clinical Trial The DISCOVER Phase 4 open-label, single-arm trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of Dupixent in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and skin of color, as defined by Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI (those with high melanin; light brown to black). During the 24-week treatment period, all patients in the trial received Dupixent monotherapy every two weeks based on weight after a loading dose: patients weighing ≥30 to <60 kg received 200 mg and patients weighing ≥60 kg received 300 mg. The primary endpoint assessed the proportion of patients who achieved at least 75% improvement on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who achieved ≥4-point improvement on the Peak-Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) at 24 weeks. Additional endpoints included pigmentary changes on the clinician-reported Post-Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation Severity Scale (PHSS; scale: 0-8) and skin dryness on the newly developed patient-reported Xerosis NRS (X-AD; scale: 0-10) at 24 weeks. About Dupixent Dupixent, which was invented using Regeneron's proprietary VelocImmune® technology, is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways and is not an immunosuppressant. The Dupixent development program has shown significant clinical benefit and a decrease in type 2 inflammation in Phase 3 trials, establishing that IL-4 and IL-13 are two of the key and central drivers of the type 2 inflammation that plays a major role in multiple related and often co-morbid diseases. Dupixent has received regulatory approvals in more than 60 countries in one or more indications including certain patients with atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), prurigo nodularis, chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in different age populations. More than 1,000,000 patients are being treated with Dupixent globally.1 About Regeneron's VelocImmune Technology Regeneron's VelocImmune technology utilizes a proprietary genetically engineered mouse platform endowed with a genetically humanized immune system to produce optimized fully human antibodies. When Regeneron's co-Founder, President and Chief Scientific Officer George D. Yancopoulos was a graduate student with his mentor Frederick W. Alt in 1985, they were the first to envision making such a genetically humanized mouse, and Regeneron has spent decades inventing and developing VelocImmune and related VelociSuite ® technologies. Dr. Yancopoulos and his team have used VelocImmune technology to create a substantial proportion of all original, FDA-approved fully human monoclonal antibodies. This includes Dupixent® (dupilumab), Libtayo® (cemiplimab-rwlc), Praluent® (alirocumab), Kevzara® (sarilumab), Evkeeza® (evinacumab-dgnb), Inmazeb® (atoltivimab, maftivimab and odesivimab-ebgn) and Veopoz® (pozelimab-bbfg). In addition, REGEN-COV® (casirivimab and imdevimab) had been authorized by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic until 2024. Dupilumab Development Program Dupilumab is being jointly developed by Regeneron and Sanofi under a global collaboration agreement. To date, dupilumab has been studied across more than 60 clinical trials involving more than 10,000 patients with various chronic diseases driven in part by type 2 inflammation. In addition to the currently approved indications, Regeneron and Sanofi are studying dupilumab in a broad range of diseases driven by type 2 inflammation or other allergic processes in Phase 3 trials, including chronic pruritus of unknown origin, bullous pemphigoid, and lichen simplex chronicus. These potential uses of dupilumab are currently under clinical investigation, and the safety and efficacy in these conditions have not been fully evaluated by any regulatory authority. U.S. INDICATIONS DUPIXENT is a prescription medicine used: DUPIXENT is not used to relieve sudden breathing problems and will not replace an inhaled rescue medicine. DUPIXENT is not used to treat any other forms of hives (urticaria). IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION Do not use if you are allergic to dupilumab or to any of the ingredients in DUPIXENT®. Before using DUPIXENT, tell your healthcare provider about all your medical conditions, including if you: Tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines you take, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines, vitamins, and herbal supplements. Especially tell your healthcare provider if you are taking oral, topical, or inhaled corticosteroid medicines; have asthma and use an asthma medicine; or have atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, prurigo nodularis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or chronic spontaneous urticaria, and also have asthma. Do not change or stop your other medicines, including corticosteroid medicine or other asthma medicine, without talking to your healthcare provider. This may cause other symptoms that were controlled by those medicines to come back. DUPIXENT can cause serious side effects, including: The most common side effects include: Tell your healthcare provider if you have any side effect that bothers you or that does not go away. These are not all the possible side effects of DUPIXENT. Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit or call 1-800-FDA-1088. Use DUPIXENT exactly as prescribed by your healthcare provider. It's an injection given under the skin (subcutaneous injection). Your healthcare provider will decide if you or your caregiver can inject DUPIXENT. Do not try to prepare and inject DUPIXENT until you or your caregiver have been trained by your healthcare provider. In children 12 years of age and older, it's recommended DUPIXENT be administered by or under supervision of an adult. In children 6 months to less than 12 years of age, DUPIXENT should be given by a caregiver. Please see accompanying full Prescribing Information including Patient Information. About Regeneron Regeneron (NASDAQ: REGN) is a leading biotechnology company that invents, develops and commercializes life-transforming medicines for people with serious diseases. Founded and led by physician-scientists, our unique ability to repeatedly and consistently translate science into medicine has led to numerous approved treatments and product candidates in development, most of which were homegrown in our laboratories. Our medicines and pipeline are designed to help patients with eye diseases, allergic and inflammatory diseases, cancer, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, hematologic conditions, infectious diseases, and rare diseases. Regeneron pushes the boundaries of scientific discovery and accelerates drug development using our proprietary technologies, such as VelociSuite, which produces optimized fully human antibodies and new classes of bispecific antibodies. We are shaping the next frontier of medicine with data-powered insights from the Regeneron Genetics Center® and pioneering genetic medicine platforms, enabling us to identify innovative targets and complementary approaches to potentially treat or cure diseases. For more information, please visit or follow Regeneron on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook or X. About Sanofi Sanofi is an R&D driven, AI-powered biopharma company committed to improving people's lives and delivering compelling growth. We apply our deep understanding of the immune system to invent medicines and vaccines that treat and protect millions of people around the world, with an innovative pipeline that could benefit millions more. Our team is guided by one purpose: we chase the miracles of science to improve people's lives; this inspires us to drive progress and deliver positive impact for our people and the communities we serve, by addressing the most urgent healthcare, environmental, and societal challenges of our time. Sanofi is listed on EURONEXT: SAN and NASDAQ: SNY. Regeneron Forward-Looking Statements and Use of Digital Media This press release includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties relating to future events and the future performance of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ('Regeneron' or the 'Company'), and actual events or results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Words such as 'anticipate,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'plan,' 'believe,' 'seek,' 'estimate,' variations of such words, and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. These statements concern, and these risks and uncertainties include, among others, the nature, timing, and possible success and therapeutic applications of products marketed or otherwise commercialized by Regeneron and/or its collaborators or licensees (collectively, 'Regeneron's Products') and product candidates being developed by Regeneron and/or its collaborators or licensees (collectively, 'Regeneron's Product Candidates') and research and clinical programs now underway or planned, including without limitation Dupixent®(dupilumab); uncertainty of the utilization, market acceptance, and commercial success of Regeneron's Products and Regeneron's Product Candidates and the impact of studies (whether conducted by Regeneron or others and whether mandated or voluntary), including the studies discussed or referenced in this press release, on any of the foregoing; the likelihood, timing, and scope of possible regulatory approval and commercial launch of Regeneron's Product Candidates and new indications for Regeneron's Products, such as Dupixent for the treatment of chronic pruritus of unknown origin, bullous pemphigoid, lichen simplex chronicus, and other potential indications; the ability of Regeneron's collaborators, licensees, suppliers, or other third parties (as applicable) to perform manufacturing, filling, finishing, packaging, labeling, distribution, and other steps related to Regeneron's Products and Regeneron's Product Candidates; the ability of Regeneron to manage supply chains for multiple products and product candidates and risks associated with tariffs and other trade restrictions; safety issues resulting from the administration of Regeneron's Products (such as Dupixent) and Regeneron's Product Candidates in patients, including serious complications or side effects in connection with the use of Regeneron's Products and Regeneron's Product Candidates in clinical trials; determinations by regulatory and administrative governmental authorities which may delay or restrict Regeneron's ability to continue to develop or commercialize Regeneron's Products and Regeneron's Product Candidates; ongoing regulatory obligations and oversight impacting Regeneron's Products, research and clinical programs, and business, including those relating to patient privacy; the availability and extent of reimbursement or copay assistance for Regeneron's Products from third-party payors and other third parties, including private payor healthcare and insurance programs, health maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit management companies, and government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid; coverage and reimbursement determinations by such payors and other third parties and new policies and procedures adopted by such payors and other third parties; changes in laws, regulations, and policies affecting the healthcare industry; competing drugs and product candidates that may be superior to, or more cost effective than, Regeneron's Products and Regeneron's Product Candidates (including biosimilar versions of Regeneron's Products); the extent to which the results from the research and development programs conducted by Regeneron and/or its collaborators or licensees may be replicated in other studies and/or lead to advancement of product candidates to clinical trials, therapeutic applications, or regulatory approval; unanticipated expenses; the costs of developing, producing, and selling products; the ability of Regeneron to meet any of its financial projections or guidance and changes to the assumptions underlying those projections or guidance; the potential for any license, collaboration, or supply agreement, including Regeneron's agreements with Sanofi and Bayer (or their respective affiliated companies, as applicable), to be cancelled or terminated; the impact of public health outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics on Regeneron's business; and risks associated with litigation and other proceedings and government investigations relating to the Company and/or its operations (including the pending civil proceedings initiated or joined by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts), risks associated with intellectual property of other parties and pending or future litigation relating thereto (including without limitation the patent litigation and other related proceedings relating to EYLEA®(aflibercept) Injection), the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings and investigations, and the impact any of the foregoing may have on Regeneron's business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition. A more complete description of these and other material risks can be found in Regeneron's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025. Any forward-looking statements are made based on management's current beliefs and judgment, and the reader is cautioned not to rely on any forward-looking statements made by Regeneron. Regeneron does not undertake any obligation to update (publicly or otherwise) any forward-looking statement, including without limitation any financial projection or guidance, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Regeneron uses its media and investor relations website and social media outlets to publish important information about the Company, including information that may be deemed material to investors. Financial and other information about Regeneron is routinely posted and is accessible on Regeneron's media and investor relations website ( and its LinkedIn page ( Sanofi Disclaimers or Forward-Looking Statements This media update contains forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. These statements include projections and estimates regarding the marketing and other potential of the product, or regarding potential future revenues from the product. Forward-looking statements are generally identified by the words 'expects', 'anticipates', 'believes', 'intends', 'estimates', 'plans', and similar expressions. Although Sanofi's management believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, investors are cautioned that forward-looking information and statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and generally beyond the control of Sanofi, that could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied or projected by, the forward-looking information and statements. These risks and uncertainties include among other things, unexpected regulatory actions or delays, or government regulation generally, that could affect the availability or commercial potential of the product, the fact that product may not be commercially successful, the uncertainties inherent in research and development, including future clinical data and analysis of existing clinical data relating to the product, including post marketing, unexpected safety, quality or manufacturing issues, competition in general, risks associated with intellectual property and any related future litigation and the ultimate outcome of such litigation, and volatile economic and market conditions, and the impact that global crises may have on us, our customers, suppliers, vendors, and other business partners, and the financial condition of any one of them, as well as on our employees and on the global economy as a whole. The risks and uncertainties also include the uncertainties discussed or identified in the public filings with the SEC and the AMF made by Sanofi, including those listed under 'Risk Factors' and 'Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements' in Sanofi's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2024. Other than as required by applicable law, Sanofi does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information or statements. All trademarks mentioned in this press release are the property of the Sanofi group except for VelociSuite and Regeneron Genetics Center . 1 Data on File
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Welcome to the fattest place in America, where fresh fruit is a 12-mile trip away
Clyde Anderson has a thick, raised scar, three centimetres wide, that runs down the centre of his chest where his ribcage was cut open. In 2020, surgeons extracted veins from Anderson's leg and grafted them to his heart in a quadruple bypass. His original coronary arteries had become so clogged with fat that he had had a heart attack. 'I was truck-driving and eating when I could, eating fast food,' says Anderson, 54. At the time, he weighed around 19 stone (120kg). 'Then my health checked up on me.' But by many accounts, Anderson, who has since sworn off fried food and is several stone lighter, is one of the luckier residents of Holmes County in rural Mississippi. 'I have classmates who died from diabetes and heart attacks in their 30s,' says Roneda Lowe, 42, another local. This is the reality of living in the fattest place in America. Of the 3,140 US counties with comparable statistics in the 2023 US Health Census, five have an obesity rate of more than 50pc. In Holmes County, Mississippi, 53.2pc of all adults are obese, meaning they have a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more. It is a microcosm of the problems plaguing rural America, as residents are on the frontline of an obesity crisis that is destroying the nation's health. How long this malaise has left is another matter. Robert F Kennedy Jr has vowed to wage war on America's expanding waistlines. Kennedy, appointed US health secretary by Donald Trump, has claimed that something in the food supply is 'poisoning the American people', with fast food giants largely to blame. 'The problem is, [the] industry is making money on keeping us sick,' he said in April. His Make America Healthy Again (Maha) report last month claimed the ultra-processed foods (UPFs) that make up nearly 70pc of children's calorie intake are 'detrimental' to their health. This crackdown has drawn support from many of America's leading food experts, who have been won over despite Kennedy's reputation for spreading conspiracy theories. 'His rhetoric is fantastic,' says Marion Nestle, emerita professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University. 'I've just never heard anybody in government take on the food industry in this way.' If he follows through with his ambitions, Kennedy will engage in all-out war with a $2.4 trillion (£1.8 trillion) food industry that has held sway in America for decades. However, to achieve his health revolution, he faces a gargantuan fight. In the darkened gymnasium of an abandoned school six miles outside Tchula, Holmes County, an irrigation system for a new hydroponics farm is being prepared. When Calvin Head flicks a switch, LED lights hum and water spurts from the tubes looped around the metal trays. They do not yet hold any plants, but Head hopes to grow microgreens, bok choi and strawberries once he receives grant funding for the necessary renovations. Head, 63, is the director of the Mileston Farmers Cooperative Association, which is focused on regenerative farming and training local young people. Elsewhere, he is growing corn, squash, watermelon, purple hull peas, and 'every green you can imagine'. As part of the group's mission, Head and his colleague Tom Collins, 70, are battling to address a paradox. Despite their base in the Mississippi Delta, which boasts some of the richest soil in the state, many Holmes County residents live in what are known as 'food deserts'. Agriculture is Mississippi's number one industry. There are more than 31,000 farms across the state covering a combined 10.3m acres. And Holmes County itself is unbelievably lush. Everything is green, apart from the flaming yellow black-eyed susans that grow wild in banks at the side of the road. Things grow well here, but grocery stores in Holmes County are few and far between. In most, the fresh food sections are tiny, and many have empty shelves. For example, in Tchula's Dollar General store – a discount chain with a small grocery section – the crates supposed to house fresh tomatoes and bananas are barren. The closest supermarket is 12 miles away in Lexington, the nearest city. But that does not mean it is plentiful or cheap. 'The closest reasonably good supermarket is about 30 miles away,' says Collins. Even the healthy food available in stores isn't always tasty or nutritious. 'They use preservatives,' says Collins. 'Maybe it takes a week before it gets here. You take a bite of an apple, and it tastes like beeswax. 'We live in a community where you have fields of traditional crops like cotton, corn, and soybeans, but that's not going to actually put food in your belly. Holmes County is a desperate area for nutritional food.' Like many places in rural America, there is no public transport whatsoever in Holmes County. There are no pavements beside 55mph roads, no cycle lanes and no public pathways through the countryside. This makes it difficult to exercise and impossible to get anywhere without a car. Lack of access to healthy food is also compounded by poor healthcare services. Holmes County's economy was built by slaves, defined by agriculture and has long-standing inequalities. But farming jobs have now long been lost to machines. 'We were really dirt poor and educationally destitute,' says Sylvia Gist, who grew up in the county in the 1950s and 60s during the Civil Rights movement and now runs a scholarship programme called the Migration Heritage Foundation. 'If you were black, you were poor, but for whites it was booming.' Sixty years on and everyone is struggling. Median household income in Holmes County is just $29,434 – the lowest of any county with a population of more than 10,000. Every single child is eligible for free school meals. 'Real poverty in America is defined by access,' says Jason Coker, who grew up in the Mississippi Delta and is president of Together for Hope, a rural development coalition. 'People might have access to a gas station, but they don't sell fruits and vegetables. They sell fried food and that food is cheaper. The cheapest food is the worst food. 'So you get a full diet of the worst foods that make you obese and prone to diabetes, which kills your health outcomes.' But even when healthy food is available, people often do not choose it. It can be more expensive and less convenient. And it is not omnipresent in TV commercials. Dennis Horton, 65, was born and raised in the small town of Goodman and opened Christine's Restaurant here seven months ago. He drives an hour each way to buy the produce he needs from markets in the Mississippi towns of Grenada, Philadelphia and Jackson. When he started, Horton and his partner tried offering dinners with vegetables on the menu, but that didn't last long. 'We had to stop about three months ago,' he says. 'It was wasting food. We weren't selling them.' Price is also key. He charges around $14 for a more nutritionally complete meal, whereas Horton's hamburgers cost $10. This can often make all the difference. 'People like to eat cheap,' he says. This reflects the loss of autonomy over food in Holmes County. On Tuesday in Goodman, families gathered around barbecues under pavilions at the side of the main street. Over the generations, the residents of Holmes County have noticed a dramatic change in their relationship with food. 'My mom grew up here with their family's own food gardens,' says Roneda Lowe. Her mother, Nellie Scott, 71, recalls how she 'could eat all day long'. 'But it was fruit,' she says. 'We had apple trees, figs and peas from our garden. We didn't get cake until Sundays and we didn't have problems with obesity.' For Lowe, the contrast was stark. 'Between my mum's generation and mine, something got disconnected,' she says. 'I grew up on Pop-Tarts. The things we eat are different. People eat a lot of French fries and chicken wings. We should go back to whole foods.' This is where 'big food' comes in. 'Years back, when the grandparents and extended family all lived under one roof, there was somebody to cook and prepare food,' says Robin McCrory, the outgoing mayor of Lexington. 'Now we live in the age of fast food and instant gratification and drive-ins and drive-throughs.' Marion Nestle argues that much of this shift has been driven by profits. 'The food industry made an enormous concerted effort in the 1950s to convince women in particular that cooking was a chore, difficult, complicated,' she says. 'They said, 'We're going to make it easy for you. We're going to produce TV dinners. We're going to produce packaged foods. All you have to do is open them and heat them up.'' Food companies pursuing higher profits for shareholders are quite naturally geared towards encouraging people to eat more. That means companies seek to manufacture food that is cheaper, tastier and has a longer shelf life. Cue the rise of ultra-processed foods. UPFs are industrially manufactured food items that have undergone intense processing and contain ingredients not found in home kitchens, such as stabilisers and emulsifiers. They include fizzy drinks, sausages, mass-produced bread and most packaged snacks. These foods now make up more than half of America's calorie intake. UPFs typically have very high levels of refined sugars, unhealthy fats and salt. They are typically high in calories and low in nutrients. But they are convenient and cheap. 'For people who are poor, who are working two or three jobs and are absolutely exhausted, they don't have money to buy expensive things for their kids,' says Nestle, the emerita professor of nutrition. 'But they can give their kids food as treats, and their kids want fast food because it's marketed. These are kids who have no idea what real food is like.' UPFs have been linked to increased risk of conditions such as heart disease and cancer. And what is particularly clear from scientific studies is that UPFs make people eat more. 'It's the processing, the texture, the flavour. These foods are deliberately designed so that you keep eating them,' says Nestle. 'These products are advertised, that's what you think you're supposed to eat. That's extremely profitable for companies. 'There's a real problem, and RFK has hit on that problem.' UPFs are a key flashpoint in Kennedy's Maha report, which describes them as 'detrimental to children's health' and draws a direct link between the higher prevalence of UPFs in America and the nation's higher rate of obesity compared to Europe. It also states that UPFs have led to 'nutritional depletion' in children and points to studies that various additives have been linked to an increase in mental disorders. The rise of UPFs and fast food marketing has coincided with fewer young people learning how to cook. 'We've forgotten how to grow our own food and cook it,' says Coker. Nestle adds: 'If you don't know how to cook, you can't go around the periphery of the supermarket, pick up real, unprocessed foods and turn them into something that your family is willing to eat in a short amount of time.' Poor health extends far beyond Holmes County. Around two in five American adults are obese, by far the highest rate in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of rich nations. Another third are overweight. When Kennedy spoke at his Senate committee hearing back in January, his diagnosis of the problem was not dissimilar to Lowe's, but he was far more aggressive. 'When my uncle [John F Kennedy] was president [in 1961-63], 3pc of Americans were obese. Today, 74pc of Americans are either obese or overweight,' he said. 'No other country has anything like this. In Japan, the obesity rate is still 3pc. And epidemics are not caused by genes. Genes may provide the vulnerability. But you need an environmental toxin. 'Something is poisoning the American people and we know that the primary culprits are changing food supply, the switch to highly chemical-intensive processed foods.' Even Donald Trump, a loyal McDonald's customer, has come out fighting. At the launch of the Maha report in May, he said: 'Unlike other administrations, we will not be silenced or intimidated by the corporate lobbyists or special interests, and I want this group to do what they have to do. It won't be nice or won't be pretty, but we have to do it.' Rarely has a previous administration been so overt in its criticism of America's food industry. Alexia Howard, a senior food industry analyst at Bernstein, says: 'I've covered the space for 20 years, and in that time frame, I haven't seen anything quite like this in food. 'It's interesting to see how far and how fast things are moving right now.' Kennedy has promised comprehensive policy plans in August, while one of his first steps has been to announce measures to phase out petroleum-based synthetic food dyes. This was low-hanging fruit. Food producers will not need to reformulate a product if the dye is changed. Flavourings, by contrast, will be more complicated. 'I think that over time, that will expand into other additives and ingredients that are not demonstrably safe,' says Howard. 'Things like preservatives and additives used to bulk ingredients up.' Kennedy has begun the process of closing the 'generally recognised as safe' (Gras) loophole, which allows food companies to secure approval for additives without applying to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA is in a consultation period on proposals to introduce a new mandate for front-of-package nutrition labels to highlight salt, added sugar and saturated fat contents of foods. 'I don't want to take food away from anybody,' Kennedy said at his committee hearing earlier this year. 'If you like a McDonald's cheeseburger or a Diet Coke, which my boss [Trump] loves, you should be able to get them. But you should know what the impacts are on your family and on your health.' Holmes County is one of the bluest hubs in a state that voted red at the last election, although Kennedy's war on fast food is winning over local voters. 'I'm really not a Trump fan, but as far as Robert F Kennedy is concerned, I agree with him to a great extent,' says Gist, who voted Democrat in November. The first task for Kennedy will be gaining influence over the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for many of the policy areas the health secretary wants to tackle. In particular, USDA oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which provides what are effectively food stamps to one in eight Americans. Kennedy says he wants to change Snap so that unhealthy foods do not qualify for taxpayer cash. Currently, the scheme is dominated by UPFs. Analysis by Bernstein shows that sweetened beverages are the second-largest category of expenditure for Snap recipients, accounting for nearly a tenth (9.3pc) of all benefits. This is double what is spent on fruit (4.7pc). A further 19.4pc is spent on frozen ready meals, shop-bought desserts, salty snacks and sweets combined. Kennedy has encouraged states to apply for individual waivers. Texas has already passed a bill to make fizzy drinks, crisps and sweets no longer eligible for Snap benefits, while nine other states are drawing up similar plans. But federal rule changes will depend on the USDA, which is being lobbied hard by some of America's biggest companies. There are already signs that big agriculture has achieved some success, particularly as the Maha report fell far short of an anticipated attack on pesticides. There are also questions over Kennedy's credibility. His Maha report has been widely panned for referencing scientific studies that do not exist and for evidence it was written with the help of AI. It has also drawn scrutiny for raising doubts about children's vaccines, a longstanding bugbear for Kennedy, who recently made a false claim that prescription medicines were the third leading cause of death in the US. 'It's very difficult to take this seriously,' says Nestle. As for big food, it is not only Kennedy who poses a threat. It is also under pressure from big pharma. Over the past year, weight-loss drugs such as Wegovy, known as GLP-1s, have exploded across the US. Between 8pc and 10pc of the US population are using these drugs, while analysts expect this figure will soon rise to 15pc. Taking GLP-1s means patients reduce their calorie consumption by 27.5pc, potentially slashing obesity rates across the country. 'The food industry is terrified because they make people eat less,' says Nestle. However, while politicians and lobbyists wage war in Washington, the residents of Holmes County are crying out for change. Before he ran the farm, Head was Holmes County's transportation director. It was during this role that he was confronted with the bleak reality that Mississippi is the only state in America where more than a quarter of children (26.1pc) are obese. Head knows that fixing such damning statistics is the only way to prevent another era of obesity in America. 'The school buses were overcrowded because some of the kids were so big that only two of them could be where three ought to sit,' he says. 'We just want to work hard to make life better for ourselves.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
The Ardent Belief That Artificial General Intelligence Will Bring Us Infinite Einsteins
In today's column, I examine an AI conjecture known as the infinite Einsteins. The deal is this. By attaining artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI), the resulting AI will allegedly provide us with an infinite number of AI-based Einsteins. We could then have Einstein-level intelligence massively available 24/7. The possibilities seem incredible and enormously uplifting. Let's talk about it. This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligence (AGI) or maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI). AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of AI, AGI, and ASI, see my analysis at the link here. AI insiders are pretty much divided into two major camps right now about the impacts of reaching AGI or ASI. One camp consists of the AI doomers. They are predicting that AGI or ASI will seek to wipe out humanity. Some refer to this as 'P(doom),' which means the probability of doom, or that AI zonks us entirely, also known as the existential risk of AI. The other camp entails the so-called AI accelerationists. They tend to contend that advanced AI, namely AGI or ASI, is going to solve humanity's problems. Cure cancer, yes indeed. Overcome world hunger, absolutely. We will see immense economic gains, liberating people from the drudgery of daily toils. AI will work hand-in-hand with humans. This benevolent AI is not going to usurp humanity. AI of this kind will be the last invention humans have ever made, but that's good in the sense that AI will invent things we never could have envisioned. No one can say for sure which camp is right and which one is wrong. This is yet another polarizing aspect of our contemporary times. For my in-depth analysis of the two camps, see the link here. Let's momentarily put aside the attainment of ASI and focus solely on the potential achievement of AGI, just for the sake of this discussion. No worries -- I'll bring ASI back into the big picture in the concluding remarks. Imagine that we can arrive at AGI. Since AGI is going to be on par with human intelligence, and since Einstein was a human and made use of his human intelligence, the logical conclusion is that AGI would be able to exhibit the intelligence of the likes of Einstein. The AGI isn't especially simulating Einstein per se. Instead, the belief is that AGI would contain the equivalent of Einstein-level intelligence. If AGI can exhibit the intelligence of Einstein, the next logical assumption is that this Einstein-like capacity could be replicated within the AGI. We already know that even contemporary generative AI allows for the simulation of multiple personas, see my analysis at the link here. With sufficient hardware, the number of personas can be in the millions and billions, see my coverage at the link here. In short, we could have a vast number of Einstein-like intelligence instances running at the same time. You can quibble that this is not the same as saying that the number of Einsteins would be infinite. It would not be an infinite count. There would be some limits involved. Nonetheless, the infinite Einsteins as a catchphrase rolls off the tongue and sounds better than saying the millions or billions of Einsteins. We'll let the use of the word 'infinite' slide in this case and agree that it means a quite large number of instances. Einstein was known for his brilliance when it comes to physics. I brought this up because it is noteworthy that he wasn't known for expertise in biology, medicine, law, or other domains. When someone refers to Einstein, they are essentially emphasizing his expertise in physics, not in other realms. Would an AGI that provides infinite Einsteins then be considered to have heightened expertise solely in physics? To clarify, that would certainly be an amazing aspect. No doubt about it. On the other hand, those infinite Einsteins would presumably have little to offer in other realms such as biology, medicine, etc. Just trying to establish the likely boundaries involved. Imagine this disconcerting scenario. We have infinite Einsteins via AGI. People assume that those Einsteins are brilliant in all domains. The AGI via this capacity stipulates a seeming breakthrough in medicine. But the reality is that this is beyond the purview of the infinite Einsteins and turns out to be incorrect. We might be so enamored with the infinite Einsteins that we fall into the mental trap that anything the AGI emits via that capacity is aboveboard and completely meritorious. Some people are more generalized about the word 'Einstein' and tend to suggest it means being ingenious on an all-around basis. For them, the infinite Einsteins consist of innumerable AI-based geniuses of all kinds. How AGI would model this capacity is debatable. We don't yet know how AGI will work. An open question is whether other forms of intelligence such as emotional intelligence (EQ) get wrapped in the infinite Einsteins. Are we strictly considering book knowledge and straight-ahead intelligence, or shall we toss in all manner of intelligence including the kitchen sink? There is no debate about the clear fact that Einstein made mistakes and was not perfect. He was unsure at times of his theories and proposals. He made mistakes and had to correct his work. Historical reviews point out that he at first rejected quantum mechanics and vowed that God does not play dice, a diss against the budding field of quantum theory. A seemingly big miss. Would AGI that allows for infinite Einsteins be equally flawed in those Einsteins as per the imperfections of the modeled human? This is an important point. Envision that we are making use of AGI and the infinite Einsteins to explore new frontiers in physics. Will we know if those Einsteins are making mistakes? Perhaps they opt to reject ideas that are worthy of pursuit. It seems doubtful that we would seek to pursue those rejected ideas simply due to the powerful assumption that all those Einsteins can't be wrong. Further compounding the issue would be the matter of AI hallucinations. You've undoubtedly heard or read about so-called AI hallucinations. The precept is that sometimes AI generates confabulations, false statements that appear to be true. A troubling facet is that we aren't yet sure when this occurs, nor how to prevent it, and ferreting out AI hallucinations can be problematic (see my extensive explanation at the link here). There is a double-whammy about those infinite Einsteins. By themselves, they presumably would at times make mistakes and be imperfect. They also would be subject to AI hallucinations. The danger is that we would be relying on the aura of those infinite Einsteins as though they are perfect and unquestionably right. Would all the AGI-devised infinite Einsteins be in utter agreement with each other? You might claim that the infinite Einsteins would of necessity be of a like mind and ergo would all agree with each other. They lean in the same direction. Anything they say would be an expression of the collective wisdom of the infinite Einsteins. The downside there is that if the infinite Einsteins are acting like lemmings, this seems to increase the chances of any mistakes being given an overabundance of confidence. Think of it this way. The infinite Einsteins tell us in unison that there's a hidden particle at the core of all physics. Any human trying to disagree is facing quite a gauntlet since an infinite set of Einsteins has made a firm declaration. A healthy principle of science is supposed to be the use of scientific discourse and debate. Would those infinite Einsteins be dogmatic or be willing to engage in open-ended human debates and inquiries? Let's consider that maybe the infinite Einsteins would not be in utter agreement with each other. Perhaps they would among themselves engage in scientific debate. This might be preferred since it could lead to creative ideas and thinking outside the box. The dilemma is what do we do when the infinite Einsteins tell us they cannot agree? Do we have them vote and based on a tally decide that whatever is stated seems to be majority-favored? How might the intellectual battle amid infinite Einsteins be suitably settled? A belief that there will be infinite Einsteins ought to open our eyes to the possibility that there would also be infinite Issac Newton's, Aristotle's, and so on. There isn't any particular reason to restrict AGI to just Einsteins. Things might seem to get out of hand. All these infinite geniuses become mired in disagreements across the board. Who are we to believe? Maybe the Einsteins are convinced by some other personas that up is down and down is up. Endless arguments could consume tons of precious computing cycles. We must also acknowledge that evil doers of historical note could also be part of the infinite series. There could be infinite Genghis Khan's, Joseph Stalin's, and the like. Might they undercut the infinite Einsteins? Efforts to try and ensure that AI aligns with contemporary human values is a vital consideration and numerous pathways are currently being explored, see my discussion at the link here. The hope is that we can stave off the infinite evildoers within AGI. Einstein had grave concerns about the use of atomic weapons. It was his handiwork that aided in the development of the atomic bomb. He found himself mired in concern at what he had helped bring to fruition. An AGI with infinite Einsteins might discover the most wonderful of new inventions. The odds are that those discoveries could be used for the good of humankind or to harm humankind. It is a quandary whether we want those infinite Einsteins widely and in an unfettered way to share what they uncover. Here's the deal. Would we restrict access to the infinite Einsteins so that evildoers could not use the capacity to devise destructive possibilities? That's a lot harder to say than it is to put into implementation. For my coverage of the challenges facing AI safety and security, see the link here. Governments would certainly jockey to use the infinite Einsteins for purposes of gaining geo-political power. A nation that wanted to get on the map as a superpower could readily launch into the top sphere by having the infinite Einsteins provide them with a discovery that they alone would be aware of and exploit. The national and international ramifications would be of great consequence, see my discussion at the link here. I promised at the start of this discussion to eventually bring artificial superintelligence into the matter at hand. The reason that ASI deserves a carve-out is that anything we have to say about ASI is purely blue sky. AGI is at least based on exhibiting intelligence of the kind that we already know and see. True ASI is something that extends beyond our mental reach since it is superintelligence. Let's assume that ASI would not only imbue infinite Einsteins, but it would also go far beyond Einstein-level thinking to super Einstein thresholds. With AGI we might have a solid chance of controlling the infinite Einsteins. Maybe. In the case of ASI, all bets are off. The ASI would be able to run circles around us. Whatever the ASI decides to do with the infinite super Einsteins is likely beyond our control. Congrats, you've now been introduced to the infinite Einsteins conjecture. Let's end for now with a famous quote from Einstein. Einstein made this remark: 'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe.' This highlights whether we could suitably harness an AGI containing infinite Einsteins depends upon human acumen and human stupidity. Hopefully, our better half prevails.
