Read more on post.

“Are you making good health decisions?” reads one Robert F. Kennedy Jr. meme on social media, a slogan printed against an image of a smiling US health secretary. Such social media posts invariably invite lively comments beneath them, but the situation is deadly serious.

On 22 September, Donald Trump and RFK Jr. publicly proposed a link between paracetamol – commonly referred to in the US by the brand name Tylenol – and autism. The paracetamol link has also been shown, through rigorous research, to be false.

It’s far from the first falsehood about science to be presented at the highest levels of the US government. While RFK Jr. denies being anti-vaccination, he has repeatedly stated debunked claims about supposed vaccine harm.

The highly politicised nature of such claims and the current political environment may lead to a reluctance among some scientists to speak out publicly. But it’s imperative that they continue to defend science in the public arena.

With wall-to-wall coverage of such issues, it is easy for the considered views of experts to get drowned out – and headlines rarely lead with the perspectives of researchers. The speed of the news cycle can also mean that the story has moved on by the time they are in a position to comment.

Science communicators weigh up the published evidence on a topic of controversy, factoring in multiple perspectives. They also talk about when science gets it wrong – and when retractions of journal articles are needed.

Toxic environment

But online toxicity and hostility on social media have increased to the extent that both scientists and, indeed, science journalists have a real fear of writing about topics even where they have strong expertise. And with the US government making major cuts to research funding and targeting politicised areas such as climate science in particular, some may be inclined to stay quiet or self-censor to avoid losing their grants.

We’ve also seen government scientists removed from their positions by the Trump administration. In June 2025, RFK Jr. removed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations.

In August 2025, the director of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Susan Monarez, was fired for what she says was refusing to dismiss vaccine policy officials. The health secretary says it was because he didn’t trust her.

Political decisions such as these and others can have a chilling effect on scientists and the media, where commentators may feel the need to tread carefully. Yet this makes it all the more urgent that everyone involved in communicating science to the public ups their game and defend expertise.

Nevertheless, when the politics are combined with the toxicity of debate in the public sphere, particularly on social media, it can make conveying expert opinions very challenging. Science communicators have often developed valuable and thoughtful methods to put the message across to the public.

Platforms like Bluesky, which give users greater control over their interactions, have been one such attempt for a civil space to discuss science. Yet, on other platforms, it is easy to see how valuable efforts such as these could sour amid the kinds of vitriolic attacks come from anonymous sources who seem to act with impunity online.

There is arguably a place to fight fire with fire, including with the use of ridicule. Examples include California governor Gavin Newsom’s mockery of Trump tweets or South Park satirising the US administration in the basest of fashions.

The longer-term goals in controlling false scientific statements involve increasing media literacy, prebunking– debunking myths and conspiracy theories before they spread rapidly – and setting out “nudge” effects, where there are several choices offered to people that eventual lead to a change of behaviour, as happens in advertising.

If a scientific or innovation programme has the resources, subvertising techniques – where spoofs and parodies of corporate ads are created to critique their messages – have been used effectively against the tobacco lobby and oil companies.

It may help for professional bodies, universities and other institutions involved in communicating science to maintain vigilance on contentious claims so that they are well prepared when these topics blow up in the media. The tylenol-autism claim is not something that had been widely shared in mainstream publications before now. But science communicators should be ready for the next time it comes up.

Read more on post.

When the British Sauna Society promises “multisensory theatre and dazzling skills” at the national Aufguss championships, you might wonder what on earth they’re talking about. The German word Aufguss means “infusion”, but don’t let that fool you into thinking this is some gentle aromatherapy session.

The idea of a sauna “championship” is likely to conjure visions of stubborn people engaging in dangerous endurance contests. Thankfully, Aufguss is nothing like that. Instead, it’s more akin to figure skating than speed skating – a choreographed performance where infusion masters compete to create the most immersive sauna experience.

These Aufguss meisters combine carefully selected essential oils, which they aerosolise on hot stones, with music and light shows while skilfully manipulating the steam using towels and body movements.

Their ten-to-20-minute performances are judged on professionalism, heat distribution, waving techniques, fragrance usage, theme implementation, atmosphere and team spirit – yes, audience participation is expected.

But is this theatrical sweating actually good for you? The health benefits are surprisingly substantial. Sauna use is a form of passive heat therapy that typically involves multiple sessions of five to 20 minutes followed by cooling activities. Studies often report reduced blood pressure and lower cardiovascular disease risk, along with decreased inflammation throughout the body.

The reason lies in how repeated heat exposure challenges our cardiovascular system in a similar way exercise does. When we’re exposed to extreme temperatures, our bodies redistribute blood from core organs to the extremities, such as the arms and legs, where the increased surface area helps dissipate heat more effectively. Blood vessels in our skin dilate to bring heat closer to the surface, while our hearts work harder to pump blood around this expanded network.

There’s even evidence that regular sauna use prepares us for our warming planet. Heat acclimatisation increases blood volume, creating a sweat reserve we can access at lower core temperatures, promoting better cooling through evaporation – a handy adaptation given the inevitable increase in heatwaves we’ll face, thanks to the climate crisis.

The aromatherapy element adds another layer of benefit. While often dismissed as fringe medicine, there’s growing evidence that essential oils like lavender can be beneficial for mental health by reducing depression and anxiety. Music, too, has demonstrable mood-altering effects, with certain frequencies shown to reduce blood pressure and slow heart and breathing rates.

However, nature gives with one hand and takes with the other. Recent research shows that while heat exposure makes us resilient, it also accelerates biological ageing. Still, this seems a reasonable trade-off compared to the alternative.

Old-school sauna championships were less salubrious

The alternative, sadly, was demonstrated at the old competitive sauna world championships. Unlike today’s artistic Aufguss competitions, these events tested pure endurance – whoever stayed longest without collapsing won. This dangerous format inevitably ended in tragedy when a finalist died and another nearly perished at the 2010 championships. Unsurprisingly, it was the last time such an event was held.

The difference is crucial. Our bodies constantly generate heat through metabolism, and in normal temperatures we lose it through radiation, conduction, convection and evaporation.

In extreme heat, most of these mechanisms become ineffective, except evaporation – hence, sweating becomes critical. Curiously, one rule of the old endurance competitions forbade wiping sweat away, essentially sabotaging the body’s primary cooling method.

When heat exposure continues beyond our cooling capacity, core temperature rises above 40°C. Here, the body is on a point of no return as heat generated by metabolism increases. The chemical reactions keeping our cells alive begin breaking down, leading to organ failure and ultimately death.

Which brings us back to the choice between two very different types of competitive sauna. One celebrates skill, artistry and the therapeutic benefits of controlled heat exposure, combined with aromatherapy and music. The other was a deadly test of stubborn endurance that rightfully belongs in the dustbin of history.

I know which type of competitive sauna I prefer.

Read more on post.

A simple urine test could reveal your risk of developing dementia decades before symptoms appear, a new study shows. For the study, my colleagues and I tracked 130,000 people and found that protein in the urine may act as an early warning sign for memory problems.

Our research showed that people with higher levels of protein leaking into their urine – a condition known as albuminuria – had a significantly greater chance of developing dementia. The association was strongest for vascular dementia, the second most common form after Alzheimer’s, and mixed dementia, which combines features of both types.

Crucially, this connection held true regardless of how well participants’ kidneys were functioning overall. In other words, protein in urine appears to predict dementia risk independently, even when standard kidney tests appear normal.

Our findings highlight how closely the kidneys and brain are connected. Both rely on networks of tiny, delicate blood vessels to function properly. When these vessels are damaged – by high blood pressure, diabetes, or other factors – the same damage that causes protein to leak into urine can also reduce blood flow to the brain.

Your kidneys act like filters, keeping useful proteins in your blood while filtering out waste. When those filters are damaged, albumin protein starts leaking through.

The brain has its own protective barrier – the blood-brain barrier – made of tightly packed cells that prevent harmful substances from entering brain tissue. Just as damaged kidney filters become leaky, a compromised blood-brain barrier allows toxins and inflammatory molecules to pass through, potentially triggering the brain changes that lead to dementia.

This discovery opens exciting possibilities for prevention. Several medications already used to protect kidneys may also protect memory. Ace inhibitors and Arbs, blood pressure drugs that reduce protein leakage, could potentially do double duty for brain health.

Even newer drugs show promise. GLP-1 drugs such as semaglutide (better known as Ozempic) and SGLT2 inhibitors such as dapagliflozin were originally developed for diabetes but also reduce protein in urine. Whether they prevent dementia remains to be proved, but early signs are encouraging.

While we cannot yet prove that treating kidney problems will prevent dementia – that would require following participants for decades in controlled trials – the biological pathway makes sense, particularly given how blood vessel damage affects both organs.

An ounce of prevention

So when should you start caring about this? Vascular damage accumulates over years, so earlier intervention is better. For most people, focusing on kidney and heart health from middle age onwards is sensible, especially if you have diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney disease, obesity, or a family history of these conditions.

Currently, doctors mainly test urine protein in people with diabetes or high blood pressure. But our findings raise questions about whether everyone over 50 should be screened, particularly those with multiple risk factors. That is a public health question requiring more research and policy discussion.

The good news is that you do not need to wait for new guidelines to take action. Lifestyle changes that protect kidneys also benefit the brain. Quitting smoking, controlling blood pressure and blood sugar, eating a balanced diet and exercising regularly can reduce your risk of both kidney disease and dementia.

Read more:
Poor sleep may nudge the brain toward dementia, researchers find

If confirmed by future studies, urine protein testing could become a standard part of dementia risk assessments. It is cheap, non-invasive and can be performed with simple dipstick tests in any doctor’s office.

While there is still no cure for dementia, early detection and prevention remain our best tools. By recognising that protein in urine signals more than just kidney trouble, we may be able to identify and protect those at risk long before memory problems begin. Sometimes the most important clues about your brain’s future health are found in the most unlikely places.