paywall
Nature, Published online: 03 June 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01690-z
Live-animal markets are a natural laboratory for viruses to evolve and spark deadly outbreaks, yet scientists lack support to study the risks they pose.
From Nature via this RSS feed
Nature, Published online: 03 June 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01679-8
Delegates to a United Nations meeting on neurotechnology ethics have devised the first set of global guidelines on maintaining users’ privacy.
From Nature via this RSS feed
Nature, Published online: 02 June 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01742-4
A clinical trial of CAR T cells is among the first to show that the treatment can work for solid tumours. Plus, humpbacks’ big eyes are nearsighted and how researchers are turbocharging ginseng.
From Nature via this RSS feed
From Scientific American via this RSS feed
From Scientific American via this RSS feed
Editor’s Note: Is anything ailing, torturing, or nagging at you? Are you beset by existential worries? Every Tuesday, James Parker tackles readers’ questions. Tell him about your lifelong or in-the-moment problems at [email protected].
Don’t want to miss a single column? Sign up to get “Dear James” in your inbox.
Dear James,
I’m not very punk rock. Not even a little. I’m well into middle age and experiencing my first taste of the many small indignities sure to come. I wear sensible shoes with gel insoles scientifically designed to relieve the pain and discomfort of plantar fasciitis. I have long and detailed conversations about insurance.
And yet, in my heart, I believe that all is mendacity. That virtue is impossible. That the system crushes us all beneath its relentless wheel. I tell hilarious jokes about the cruel pointlessness of existence and receive only blank stares in return. If the world were to perish in flames, I’m pretty sure it would be no more than it deserved.
So my question to you is simple: Is this any way to live?
Also: Can you recommend any good bands?
Dear Reader,
You are punk rock to the tips of your gel-cushioned toes, my friend. Don’t worry about that. I’m sorry that nobody’s digging your nihilistic humor. Maybe work on your material a bit, soften the edges, angle it a touch toward the mainstream? Day-to-day discourse, in my experience, can absorb a remarkable amount of savage absurdism, gags about doom, and so on (this stuff is highly relatable!)—as long as you don’t come off as aggressive or out of your mind. As long as you don’t come off too punk rock.
To your larger point: How are we to live, make our way, proceed in the world when so much of said world is clearly an evil farce? (Huge pause while advice columnist slurps his coffee, stares out the window, and considers the question.) The punk rockers were not the first to have this insight, of course: The poets and the prophets have always known it. No one is more punk rock than the unknown author of Ecclesiastes. Or John Donne. Or Sylvia Plath. Or the author(s) of the Psalms, in certain moods.
The trick, I think, is to use this world-withering vision as a stimulant rather than as a philosophical end point. Don’t let it shut you down; let it wake you up. Use it to sharpen your senses and file your encounters to a keen edge. As in: It’s all bollocks and everyone dies, but wow, this bag of Dunkin’ Donuts Snackin’ Bacon tastes amazing. Or: It’s all bollocks and everyone dies, so why don’t I help this elderly person with her shopping? Use it, this flame of disgust, to refine your language!
Regarding bands, I have one word for you: Godflesh. (Cue sound of Godflesh fans across America falling to their knees in grateful assent.) It’s all there. The beauty, the horror, the low end that purges your bowels, the guitar tone that scrapes the plaque from your heart. Start with Hymns.
Wanting to be sedated,
James
Dear James,
What are some great movies that have come out this year?
Dear Reader,
The last great movie I saw was Friendship. Profoundly awkward person (Tim Robinson) is absorbed at dizzying speed into charmed friend circle of smooth bro (Paul Rudd) and then—even more abruptly—rejected. At which point he shouts, in despair, “You made me feel too free! You accepted me too quickly!” Genius.
Feet up in the back row,
James
By submitting a letter, you are agreeing to let The Atlantic use it in part or in full, and we may edit it for length and/or clarity.
From The Atlantic via this RSS feed
Marco Restivo / ReutersVolcanic ash and steam rise from Mount Etna, as seen from Milo, Italy, on June 2, 2025.
Fabrizio Villa / GettyA volcanic plume rises from the southeast crater of Mount Etna on June 2, 2025, seen from Catania, Italy.
Marco Restivo / ReutersPlumes of volcanic ash rise from Mount Etna, as seen from Milo, Italy, on June 2, 2025.
Salvatore Allegra / Anadolu / GettyA cloud of ash and gas rises as Etna erupts again, seen in Nicolosi, near Catania, on June 2, 2025.
Joachim Herrmann / ReutersAsh and steam rise from Mount Etna, seen near Motta Camastra, Sicily, on June 2, 2025.
Marco Restivo / ReutersSteam rises from Mount Etna, as seen from Milo, on June 2, 2025.
Marco Restivo / ReutersAsh and steam erupt from Mount Etna, seen from Milo, on June 2, 2025.
Salvatore Allegra / Anadolu / GettyA cloud of ash and gas rises above Etna, near Catania, on June 2, 2025.
Joachim Herrmann / ReutersAfter its eruption earlier in the morning, tourists visit a less-active part of Mount Etna on June 2, 2025.
Fabrizio Villa / GettyMount Etna at sunset, seen from downtown Catania, appears calm after its violent eruption earlier in the day, on June 2, 2025.
From The Atlantic via this RSS feed
Over the past year and a half, I’ve kept finding myself in unexpected conversations about Diddy. Cab drivers, deli cooks, and far-flung uncles have all wanted to chat about the 55-year-old rapper who’s now on trial for charges of sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, and transportation to engage in prostitution. There is, certainly, plenty to talk about: Federal prosecutors allege that the media mogul liked to throw baby-oil-slicked orgies—called “freak-offs”—where abuse and exploitation regularly occurred. (He pleaded not guilty; his lawyers say he never coerced anyone into anything.) But the conversations tend to be less about Sean “Diddy” Combs than about playing a guessing game: Who else was involved?
Some of the people I’ve spoken with had theories about Justin Bieber, citing rumors suggesting that the singer—a teenage protégé of Diddy’s—had been preyed upon (“Justin is not among Sean Combs’ victims,” Bieber’s representative said in a statement last month). Others speculated that the Democratic Party, whose candidates Combs has campaigned for over the years, was in some way implicated in the case. Most of them agreed that Diddy was comparable to Jeffrey Epstein in that he was probably at the hub of a celebrity sex-crime ring.
Since the trial began a few weeks ago, it’s become clear what these conversations were: distractions from the bleak, all-too-ordinary issues that this case is really about.
The wild nature of the conspiracist narratives surrounding Combs can’t be understated. In January, social-media users wondered if the fires that swept through glitzy L.A. neighborhoods were meant to destroy evidence pointing to the participation of other celebrities. On Amazon last year, sales spiked for a salacious memoir purportedly written by the rapper’s late girlfriend, Kimberly Porter, and published by a self-described investigative journalist using the pseudonym Jamal T. Millwood—the latter being the supposed alias that Tupac used after he, according to legend, faked his death. (Amazon pulled the book from its offerings after Porter’s family lambasted it as a forgery.) One viral fake news story, based on no evidence at all, said that Will Smith had sold one of his children into Combs’s servitude. On Truth Social last fall, Donald Trump himself shared a meme featuring a fabricated image of Kamala Harris and Diddy, with text reading, “Madam vice president, have you ever been involved with or engaged in one of Puff Daddies freak offs?”
The media also stoked the fervor. A former bodyguard of Combs’s gave an interview for a TMZ documentary saying that politicians, princes, and preachers were mixed up in the rapper’s debauchery. The conservative influencer Charlie Kirk devoted a portion of one webcast to wondering, “Maybe P. Diddy has footage of Barack Obama doing something he shouldn’t have been doing?” Piers Morgan hosted a singer, Jaguar Wright, who insinuated that Jay-Z and Beyoncé had committed crimes much like the ones Diddy is charged with. After those stars issued a vigorous denial and threatened to sue, Morgan apologized and edited any mention of them out of the interview online—and then, in February, retired General Michael Flynn presented Wright with a “Defender of Freedom Award” at Mar-a-Lago.
A few actual facts underlay all of this QAnon-esque speculation. For more than a decade, Combs’s legendary White Parties attracted a medley of stars to the Hamptons, Los Angeles, and Saint-Tropez. Attendees often joked publicly about how rowdy the festivities could get. Over the past year or so, dozens of people—an array of musicians, workers, models, and others who have crossed paths with him since the 1990s—have sued Combs for a variety of offenses (all of which he denies), and some of those suits have alluded to alleged misdeeds by other celebrities. (One lawsuit naming Jay-Z was dropped after the star denied the claim; he has since countersued for defamation.)
Still, the speed and sheer giddiness with which conspiracist thinking eclipsed the known details of Combs’s case confirmed a few bleak realities about the psyche of a country in which economic inequality and sexual abuse are both stubbornly endemic. A whole class of politicians, commentators, and media platforms exist to exploit the resentments that everyday people hold toward the rich and famous. Meanwhile, rates of sexual harassment and assault—reportedly experienced by 82 percent of women and 42 percent of men in the United States in their lifetime—remain as high as they were when the #MeToo movement erupted in 2017. Examining the real reasons for this is less fun—and, for many, less profitable—than imagining that Hollywood is a front for ritualistic sadism.
The trial itself, which began in Manhattan on May 12, has not yet revealed a network of super-famous evildoers. Although the testimony has surfaced vivid and bizarre details about the rarefied lives of celebrities, it’s also told an intimate, human, oddly familiar story about how power can warp relationships in all sorts of ways. I realized that in the random conversations I’d had leading up to the trial, I’d heard a lot about the imagined villains, and very little about the people they were said to have hurt.
Combs’s downfall in the public eye began in November 2023, when an ex-girlfriend, the singer Cassie Ventura, filed a lawsuit alleging that he had raped and physically abused her. The suit was settled one day later out of court, but many of its details are resurfacing now. Although the federal trial against Combs is expected to last at least eight weeks and feature dozens of witnesses, Diddy and Ventura’s relationship has been central to the testimony. Prosecutors say Combs ran an organized criminal enterprise that served, in part, to assist in and cover up this one woman’s subjugation.
Ventura, now 38, was a 19-year-old aspiring R&B singer when she met Combs around 2005. He’d heard her first-ever single, “Me & U”; it would become a hit, but Diddy promised that he could guide her to a career of lasting success. He signed her to a 10-album deal with his label, Bad Boy Records, and released her debut album in 2006. It is still her only album to ever come out.
Their relationship soon evolved from professional to romantic. The singer said she’d initially rejected the rapper’s advances but that she’d felt pressured to do what he wanted because her career was largely in his hands. He also reportedly provided her with gifts, threatened her with punishment, and supplied her with drugs until she felt he controlled her life. She said that he then used that control liberally, dictating what she wore, whom she socialized with, which medications she took.
[Read: The myth of the “underage woman”]
He also beat her. Hotel security-camera footage from 2016 published by CNN last year—and used as evidence in the trial—showed Combs chasing Ventura down a hallway, throwing her to the ground, kicking her, and pulling her by her sweatshirt. The video is a small and terrible glimpse into their relationship. Diddy is in a towel and clearly furious; Ventura, starkly alone, makes no effort to defend herself. “My behavior on that video is inexcusable,” Combs said in a filmed mea culpa last year; during the trial, his lawyers have acknowledged that he was violent toward her.
Other witnesses in the trial have testified that the hotel assault was not an isolated incident. One former assistant, Capricorn Clark, reported seeing Combs repeatedly kick Ventura after learning that she’d been romantically involved with the rapper Kid Cudi. Another former assistant, George Kaplan, described a 2015 altercation between Combs and Ventura on Diddy’s private jet. He heard the sound of breaking glass in a private area, where he then saw Combs standing and holding a whiskey glass over Ventura, who was on her back. According to Kaplan, Ventura screamed, “Isn’t anybody seeing this?” No one on the plane intervened, Kaplan said.
The now-notorious freak-offs allegedly occurred against this backdrop of violence and intimidation. Ventura’s lawsuit said that toward the beginning of Combs and Ventura’s relationship, Combs hired a man to have sex with Ventura while Diddy watched. Encounters like that, involving sex workers and drugs, became regular occurrences that could last for days at a time. The freak-offs were, prosecutors say, “performances” for Combs’s pleasure. And they affected the performers; Ventura testified to having medical problems, mental-health issues, and drug addiction as a result of them.
[Read: The transparent cruelties of Diddy’s entertainment machine]
Combs’s defense argues that Ventura willingly participated in these events. His lawyers have cited text messages in which she appears to express enthusiasm: “I’m always ready to freak off,” she wrote to him in August 2009. Other texts suggest a more complicated picture—in 2017, Ventura wrote, “I love our FOs when we both want it.” She and prosecutors assert that whenever she tried to resist Combs’s commands, he would bring her to heel with physical violence and threats of blackmail and financial harm. Ventura’s lawsuit alleged that when she tried to break up with him for good in 2018, he raped her in her home (an accusation that Diddy’s defense has concertedly pushed back on during the trial).
Ventura is not the only alleged victim of Combs’s. His employees have shared particularly disturbing stories: Clark said that Combs kidnapped her twice; a former assistant identified as Mia testified last week that the rapper repeatedly sexually assaulted her. (Diddy’s lawyers dispute that the kidnappings ever happened and have questioned Mia’s credibility.) Prosecutors are pursuing racketeering charges on the theory that Combs didn’t act alone: For example, they say he may have had someone set Kid Cudi’s car on fire (the defense denies Combs’s involvement in that arson). In this way, Diddy’s case is also a story about what happens when it’s easier to take the check and not ask too many questions.
[Read: What finally brought R. Kelly down]
But fundamentally, the trial is another highly public test of the definition of consent. It recalls the prosecutions of Harvey Weinstein, the movie producer who allegedly dangled job prospects to women interested in the film industry in exchange for sex (one of his convictions was overturned last year and is being retried now). It also evokes R. Kelly, the musician who wooed aspiring singers with promises of career help and then violently kept them—and other women—in sexual servitude (behavior for which he is currently serving 31 years in prison).
And the issues here transcend celebrity. When #MeToo erupted eight years ago, it forced many everyday Americans to reexamine experiences they’d had in their workplaces and homes. The movement has, by many indications, petered out or even curdled into backlash: Yesterday, one of Diddy’s lawyers asked Mia whether she was looking for a “Me Too money grab,” which suggests he thinks the very words Me Too might be tinged for some jury members. But to sit with the allegations against Combs—and the experiences of the alleged victims—is to again be confronted with the underlying reasons that movement happened. It’s to be confronted with the intolerable things that happen when men are given the power to pursue their desires however they want, and to extract whatever they want from their underlings.
A lot of people would evidently prefer to turn away from that confrontation—and to focus on fantasy. Since I started paying attention to the case, my YouTube algorithm has become polluted by videos with AI-generated courtroom sketches of stars such as Will Smith and Jay-Z, paired with totally imaginary testimony about their involvement in Combs’s crimes. The videos are yet another sign that our society is losing any shared sense of reality. They do, however, have disclaimers stipulating that they are fiction, which raises the question: Why is this the story someone wants to hear?
Perhaps because tales of demonic Hollywood cabals offer a simple, clear-cut narrative that doesn’t ask us to reflect on how domestic violence and sexual coercion really get perpetuated—and perhaps because that narrative benefits certain agendas. Last month, I tuned in to Asmongold, a popular Twitch streamer who interprets the daily news for a large audience of young, often aggrieved men. He had a glazed look in his eyes as TV news footage related to the trial played on his screen. Then he said, “I don’t care about this case at all—until Diddy starts naming names.”
From The Atlantic via this RSS feed
Congressional Republicans claim to have achieved something truly miraculous. Their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they argue, would cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid spending over 10 years without causing any Americans to lose health care—or, at least, without making anyone who loses health care worse off.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by imposing Medicaid work requirements, the bill would eventually increase the uninsured population by at least 8.6 million. At first, Republican officials tried to defend this outcome on the grounds that it would affect only lazy people who refuse to work. This is clearly untrue, however. As voluminous research literature shows, work requirements achieve savings by implementing burdensome paperwork obligations that mostly take Medicaid from eligible beneficiaries, not 25-year-old guys who prefer playing video games to getting a job.
Perhaps for that reason, some Republicans in Washington are now making even more audacious claims. On CNN over the weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought insisted that “no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.” Likewise, Joni Ernst, a Republican senator from Iowa, recently told voters at a town hall, “Everyone says that Medicaid is being cut, people are going to see their benefits cut; that’s not true.” After one attendee shouted, “People will die,” Ernst replied, “We all are going to die,” and later doubled down on her comment on social media, attempting to equate concern that Medicaid cuts could harm people with believing in the tooth fairy.
Officials such as Vought and Ernst have not provided a detailed explanation of their blithe assurances. But there is one center of conservative thought that has attempted to defend these claims: the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Last week, it published an editorial headlined “The Medicaid Scare Campaign.” The thesis is that the Medicaid cuts would “improve healthcare by expanding private insurance options, which provide better access and health outcomes than Medicaid.”
This would be, as they say, huge if true: The GOP has found a way to give low-income Americans better health care while saving hundreds of billions in taxpayer money. The timing is even more remarkable, given that this wondrous solution has come along at precisely the moment when congressional Republicans are desperate for budget savings to partially offset the costs of a regressive and fiscally irresponsible tax cut.
Sadly, a close reading of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial reveals that no such miracle is in the offing. Instead, the argument relies on a series of misunderstandings and non sequiturs to obscure the obvious fact that cutting Medicaid would make poor people sicker and more likely to die.
[Jonathan Chait: The cynical Republican plan to cut Medicaid]
The editorial begins by acknowledging a recent study’s conclusion that Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act reduced mortality by 2.5 percent among low-income American adults. This would imply that taking Medicaid away from people would cause many of them to die. Not so fast, the editorial insists: “The 2.5% difference in mortality for low-income adults between the expansion and non-expansion states wasn’t statistically significant when disabled adults were included.”
The implication is that the lifesaving effect of the Medicaid expansion disappears if you include disabled adults. In fact, Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago economist and a co-author of the study, told me that the reason the study excluded disabled adults is that they were already eligible for public health insurance before the expansion. The way to measure the effect of a change is to focus on the population that was treated to the change. So either the Wall Street Journal editorial board is misleading its audience intentionally or it does not understand statistics. (Decades of Journal editorials provide ample grounds for both explanations.)
The editorial then suggests that Obamacare has not overcome other social factors that are causing people to die: “What’s clear is that the ObamaCare expansion hasn’t reduced deaths among lower-income, able-bodied adults. U.S. life expectancy remains about the same as it was in 2014 owing largely to increased deaths among such adults from drug overdoses and chronic diseases.”
This passage, like the previous one, is intended to sound like a claim that giving people access to medical care does not reduce their likelihood of suffering a premature death. But that is not really what it’s saying. The editorial is merely noting that the drug epidemic and other factors worked against the effects of the Medicaid expansion. Presumably, if the government had started throwing people off their health insurance at the same time that the drug-overdose epidemic was surging, then life expectancy would have gotten even worse.
The article goes on to explain that Medicaid reimburses doctors and hospitals at a lower rate than private insurance does. That is absolutely correct: In the United States, Medicaid is the cheapest existing way to give people access to medical care. The editorial laments that Medicaid recipients have worse outcomes than people on private insurance do. But the Republican plan isn’t to put Medicaid recipients on private insurance, which would cost money. The plan is to take away even their extremely cheap insurance and leave them with nothing. (Well, not nothing: The editorial notes that the bill would double “the health-savings account contribution limit to $17,100 from $8,550 for families earning up to $150,000.” For reference, in most states, a four-person household must earn less than $45,000 a year to be eligible for Medicaid.)
Finally, the editorial asserts, “The GOP bill is unlikely to cause many Americans to lose Medicaid coverage.” Here is where I would analyze the editorial’s support for this remarkable claim, but there is none. The sentence just floats by itself in a sea of text that bears no relationship to it.
Indeed, the editorial doesn’t even attempt to explain why the official Congressional Budget Office estimate is dramatically wrong. Nor does it engage with the mountain of evidence showing that people who obtain Medicaid coverage tend, naturally enough, to be better off as a result. The near-universal belief that being able to see a doctor and buy medicine makes you healthier is the kind of presumption that would take extraordinary evidence to refute. The Wall Street Journal editorial offers none at all.
Advocates of the House bill have cultivated an aura of condescension toward anybody who states its plain implications. But even the most detailed attempt to substantiate their position consists entirely of deflections and half-truths. If this is the best case that can be made for worrying about the GOP’s plan for Medicaid, then Americans should be worried indeed.
From The Atlantic via this RSS feed
From Scientific American via this RSS feed