Featured Stories
Election Month Ruling By Supreme Court Regrettable
FAIRFAX, Virginia, July 20 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release:
* * *
Election Month Ruling By Supreme Court Regrettable
*
June 29, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee :
"In an apparent bid to avert Democrats' threatened Supreme Court packing scheme, Republican-appointed justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett have apparently opted to just give Democrats
... Show Full Article
FAIRFAX, Virginia, July 20 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release:
* * *
Election Month Ruling By Supreme Court Regrettable
*
June 29, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee :
"In an apparent bid to avert Democrats' threatened Supreme Court packing scheme, Republican-appointed justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett have apparently opted to just give Democratseverything they want including an election month voting where ballots are counted no matter how late they arrive after Election Day. Arguing there is no prohibition against late ballots, the nation's highest court has effectively made Election Day a dead letter. Now, the only resort for the American people who want to restore same-day voting is for Congress to pass another statute to clarify what federal law has already stated for more than a century was 'the day for the election...' This ruling is regrettable and will prove Stalin's maxim that it is not those who vote, but those who count the ballots that decide everything."
For media availability contact Americans for Limited Government at media@limitgov.org.
***
Original text here: https://getliberty.org/2026/06/election-month-ruling-by-supreme-court-regrettable/
What a Landmark Case in Britain Could Mean for Mother Charged in Idaho Twins' Deaths
FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, July 16 -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following news:
* * *
What a Landmark Case in Britain Could Mean for Mother Charged in Idaho Twins' Deaths
Prosecutors who accused Angela Cannings in the 1990s of suffocating her two sons relied on prominent pediatric experts who testified that multiple unexplained infant deaths in one family were extraordinarily unlikely to occur naturally. Cannings was sentenced to life in prison, but less than
... Show Full Article
FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, July 16 -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following news:
* * *
What a Landmark Case in Britain Could Mean for Mother Charged in Idaho Twins' Deaths
Prosecutors who accused Angela Cannings in the 1990s of suffocating her two sons relied on prominent pediatric experts who testified that multiple unexplained infant deaths in one family were extraordinarily unlikely to occur naturally. Cannings was sentenced to life in prison, but less thantwo years later, an appeals court overturned her conviction, ruling that prosecutors should not proceed when reputable experts disagree about the cause of death, and there is no other compelling evidence.
by Henrick Karoliszyn, DSW
When Angela Cannings' child died in 1989, doctors concluded the 13-week-old baby girl tragically succumbed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
By the time two more infants -- one in 1991, the other in 1999 -- died, suspicion replaced sympathy.
Prosecutors alleged the English mother had suffocated her two sons. To make their case, they relied on prominent pediatric experts who testified that multiple unexplained infant deaths in one family were extraordinarily unlikely to occur naturally.
In 2002, a jury convicted Cannings of murder, and she was sentenced to life in prison.
Less than two years later, the England and Wales Court of Appeal overturned the convictions in a decision that fundamentally changed how British courts view expert medical testimony in unexplained child death cases.
Ruling continues to influence legal discussion decades later
The ruling in Cannings' case continues to influence legal discussions more than two decades later because it established an enduring principle. Namely, when respected medical experts fundamentally disagree about the cause of a child's death, and there is no compelling independent evidence of homicide, criminal convictions should not rest on disputed scientific opinion alone.
The Court of Appeal had ruled prosecutors should not proceed when reputable experts disagree about the cause of death and there is no other compelling evidence.
That principle has resurfaced in legal commentary as prosecutors in Idaho pursue murder charges against Andrea Shaw, accused of killing her 18-month-old twin toddlers.
The 23-year-old mother was arrested more than a year after her fraternal twins, Dallas and Tyson, were found dead in their home on May 1, 2025, eight days after receiving their 18-month vaccines.
Shaw spoke with CHD.TV days after the tragic 2025 incident, saying at the 18-month mark, the twins received their hepatitis A, DTaP and flu shots. Shaw said she told the pediatrician she was concerned about the flu shot because there was a history of adverse reactions to the vaccine on the father's side of the family. However, the doctor assured her it was safe for the twins.
Within 24 hours, Shaw took the twins to the emergency room after they both became lethargic, their lips turned blue and they experienced digestive issues. Medical records confirm they were diagnosed with "post-immunization reaction."
After administering Tylenol and observing the twins as they ate popsicles, doctors sent them home. Shaw told CHD.TV that days later, she discovered both children dead in their beds. "They looked as if they had gone in their sleep," she said.
Shaw pleaded not guilty, and her attorney said the children died from medical complications rather than homicide. Prosecutors contend the twins were intentionally suffocated. On Tuesday, a district judge in Payette County revoked Shaw's $2 million bail.
Shaw's next court date is scheduled for August 18.
While the evidence alleged in Shaw's prosecution differs significantly from that presented in Cannings' case, the British decision remains one of the leading examples of how courts wrestle with scientific uncertainty in explaining a child's death.
"The Angela Cannings case taught us a hard lesson: Even top medical experts can be wrong, and guesswork should never replace hard evidence," said lawyer Chad Davenport. "When dealing with sudden, unexplained tragedies like the Andrea Shaw case, the justice system cannot afford to rush to judgment. If police and medical examiners ignore a family's medical history or dismiss other possible causes right out of the gate, we risk putting another innocent mother behind bars."
COVID Justice Resolution: Sign the Resolution
Jurors asked to weigh competing interpretations of medical science
Cannings was no stranger to grief long before she entered a courtroom. Her first child, Gemma, died in 1989 at just 13 weeks old. Doctors concluded she had died from SIDS.
Two years later, another baby, Jason, died unexpectedly at 7 weeks.
In 1999, her son Matthew died at 18 weeks.
Each death devastated the family. Together, they eventually attracted the attention of investigators who questioned whether three infant deaths in one household could truly be natural.
Police reopened the earlier cases and sought opinions from pediatric specialists who argued the deaths were inconsistent with SIDS.
By the time Cannings went on trial in 2002, prosecutors built their case almost entirely around expert medical testimony.
There was no confession, no eyewitnesses. There also was no evidence to demonstrate smothering, and there were no physical injuries to prove homicide.
Instead, jurors were asked to weigh competing interpretations of medical science.
Among the prosecution's most influential witnesses was pediatrician Roy Meadow, former president of the British Paediatric Association, whose testimony in several high-profile infant death prosecutions would later become the focus of intense national criticism.
Although Meadow's evidence varied from case to case, prosecutors argued that multiple unexplained infant deaths within the same family were so unusual that murder represented the more likely explanation.
Defense experts disputed those conclusions, pointing to the limits of contemporary medical knowledge and the possibility of inherited disorders that had not yet been identified.
The jury convicted Cannings of murdering Jason and Matthew.
She was acquitted of murdering Gemma.
The appeal that changed everything
Cannings served about 20 months in prison before Britain's Court of Appeal unanimously overturned her convictions on Dec. 10, 2003, The Guardian reported.
The court's opinion, written by Lord Justice Judge, did not declare that Cannings was factually innocent.
Instead, it reached a legal conclusion that convictions were unsafe because they depended almost entirely upon disputed expert medical opinion.
In one of the decision's most frequently cited passages, the court wrote that if the outcome of a prosecution depends "exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts," it will often be "unwise, and therefore, unsafe," to allow the case to proceed to conviction.
The Cannings judgment did not establish that unexplained infant deaths can never be homicides. Nor did it prevent prosecutors from relying on medical experts.
What it did was reinforce a central principle of criminal law: Where science cannot reliably distinguish natural death from criminal conduct, the prosecution still bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That reasoning would soon have consequences extending far beyond one family's tragedy.
Cannings case led to review of past court decisions
The impact of the Cannings decision was immediate.
Within weeks of the Court of Appeal ruling, Britain's legal system began examining other convictions in which disputed medical evidence had played a central role.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced a review of cases involving infant deaths in which expert testimony similar to that questioned in Cannings' case had been presented to juries.
The review examined hundreds of cases and became one of the largest examinations of potential medical evidence failures in modern British criminal justice.
In UK Parliament, Goldsmith said the Cannings ruling had "serious and far-reaching implications" because of the possibility that some convictions may have depended on evidence that could no longer be regarded as reliable.
Earlier cases involving mothers convicted after their infants died also came under renewed scrutiny, including the cases of Sally Clark and Donna Anthony. Those cases, like Cannings', became central to a national debate over how courts should handle expert evidence when medical knowledge is incomplete.
Clark, a solicitor, was convicted in 1999 of murdering her two infant sons after prosecutors relied heavily on medical testimony suggesting the deaths were unlikely to have been natural. Her convictions were overturned in 2003 after the Court of Appeal found that important evidence had not been properly disclosed and that the prosecution's case had been undermined.
Anthony was jailed in 1998 after being convicted of murdering her two infants. Six years later, she was freed from prison after her sentence was overturned.
These cases and others collectively prompted a broader question: How should courts respond when scientific theories presented as fact later prove uncertain or flawed?
Expert opinion doesn't equate with proof
The Cannings case became a landmark not because it rejected science, but because it demanded more careful use of it.
Medical experts are often essential in criminal investigations. Their testimony can explain injuries, causes of death and complex biological processes that juries cannot evaluate on their own.
But the Cannings case demonstrated that expert opinion is not the same as proof.
A 2015 paper published in The Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B journal contended that confidence in forensic evidence has been weakened by methodological shortcomings, wrongful convictions, inconsistent standards for expert testimony and communication gaps between scientists and the legal system.
To improve forensic science, the authors recommend stronger scientific validation, standardized accreditation for experts, clearer admissibility standards and educational "primers" to help judges and juries understand forensic concepts.
That issue became especially important in SIDS cases, where researchers continued studying genetic, metabolic and environmental factors that can contribute to unexpected deaths.
In the years after Cannings was convicted, scientists identified genetic conditions and other medical explanations that helped show why some infant deaths once considered suspicious could occur naturally.
What this taught courts was that not every unexplained death has a natural explanation.
What are the lessons for modern prosecutions?
The questions raised by Cannings continue to appear whenever prosecutors and defense attorneys debate the meaning of medical evidence.
That debate will take on renewed attention in the U.S. as the criminal case against Shaw moves through the courts.
Although the two cases involve different legal systems, evidence and allegations, they contain connective tissue.
Attorney John Coyle said both cases are fundamentally linked.
"The similarities at a very high level are that it is suspicious that two infants who die at the same time," he said, saying the prosecution will need to weigh the Shaw case, like the Cannings case, with "statistical unlikelihood" of two infants dying in the same household.
"From the outside, it looks like in the Cannings' case, evidence was presented about how it is statistically almost impossible to have happened," Coyle said. "The connecting line is whether the prosecution now rests on the statistical unlikelihood of it happening to twins" in the Shaw case.
The central safeguard remains the same. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
* * *
Henrick Karoliszyn, DSW, is an investigative reporter for The Defender.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/angela-cannings-england-landmark-case-meaning-idaho-mother-charged-twins-deaths/
[Category: Health Care]
Policy Matters Ohio: Data Centers Drive Even More Price Increases for Ohio Ratepayers
COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 16 -- Policy Matters Ohio, a nonpartisan policy research institute, posted the following news release:
* * *
Data centers drive even more price increases for Ohio ratepayers
PJM announcement underscores need for clean energy solutions to power data centers
-
The energy grid operator PJM has announced auction results projected to add $6.3 billion in costs to ratepayers in its service area, which includes Ohio. The company's announcement cites rapidly growing demand from data centers as the driving force behind the rate increases.
A new Policy Matters Ohio brief shows how
... Show Full Article
COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 16 -- Policy Matters Ohio, a nonpartisan policy research institute, posted the following news release:
* * *
Data centers drive even more price increases for Ohio ratepayers
PJM announcement underscores need for clean energy solutions to power data centers
-
The energy grid operator PJM has announced auction results projected to add $6.3 billion in costs to ratepayers in its service area, which includes Ohio. The company's announcement cites rapidly growing demand from data centers as the driving force behind the rate increases.
A new Policy Matters Ohio brief shows howdata center-driven demand is also deepening the state's dependence on fossil fuels, arguing that lawmakers should require greater oversight of data center development and accountability for utilities, while requiring data center operators to fund renewable energy development for overall affordability and sustainability.
"Ohio legislators are making a choice about how to meet the enormous energy demands of data centers," said Molly Bryden, researcher at Policy Matters Ohio and author of the brief. "So far, too many leaders have chosen a path that locks Ohio into more natural gas generation and slows our transition to cleaner energy while increasing costs to families on their electric bills."
The brief finds that the rapid expansion of data centers is driving investments in new natural gas generation, encouraging additional fracking activity, and increasing interest in costly and potentially risky nuclear projects.
"The same companies driving this surge in electricity demand have extraordinary financial resources," Bryden said. "Lawmakers should require data center operators to help expand grid-connected renewable energy generation rather than incentivizing a fossil-fuel-heavy buildout. By taking options like renewables off the table, Ohio legislators are locking rate payers into higher costs and limited relief."
"Ohio's history of anti-renewable policy has effectively blocked more than 5.3 gigawatts of utility-scale solar and wind projects," Bryden said. "Had these projects moved forward, their addition to the grid could have played an important role in insulating Ohio rate payers from price increases."
The full brief is available here: https://policymattersohio.org/research/data-centers-slow-ohios-clean-energy-transition/
* * *
Original text here: https://policymattersohio.org/news/2026/07/15/data-centers-drive-even-more-price-increases-for-ohio-ratepayers/
[Category: Economics]
In Defense of Animals: "Appalling" Sentence for New York Man Who Brutally Kicked Girlfriend's Cat to Death
SAN RAFAEL, California, July 16 -- In Defense of Animals posted the following news:
* * *
"Appalling" Sentence for New York Man Who Brutally Kicked Girlfriend's Cat to Death
In Defense of Animals is strongly condemning the sentencing of Harold Larson, who was charged with aggravated animal cruelty for fatally kicking his girlfriend's cat.
On July 9, he was sentenced by Judge Robert Cook to just one year in jail, ordered to pay a civil judgment of $205, and banned from having an animal companion for only one year.
The charges stem from an incident on February 25, 2026, when Larson intentionally
... Show Full Article
SAN RAFAEL, California, July 16 -- In Defense of Animals posted the following news:
* * *
"Appalling" Sentence for New York Man Who Brutally Kicked Girlfriend's Cat to Death
In Defense of Animals is strongly condemning the sentencing of Harold Larson, who was charged with aggravated animal cruelty for fatally kicking his girlfriend's cat.
On July 9, he was sentenced by Judge Robert Cook to just one year in jail, ordered to pay a civil judgment of $205, and banned from having an animal companion for only one year.
The charges stem from an incident on February 25, 2026, when Larson intentionallykicked his girlfriend's cat, Rogue, with his work boot. The violent attack caused catastrophic injuries, and life-threatening respiratory failure requiring intubation and oxygen support, ultimately resulting in Rogue's death.
Veterinary findings described in the record conclude that Rogue's injuries were highly consistent with repeated blunt force trauma, indicating ongoing abuse, and were not consistent with accidental injury.
Such conduct falls squarely within New York Agriculture & Markets Law Sec. 353-a, which recognizes aggravated cruelty to animals as a felony offense when a person intentionally causes extreme pain or death in a particularly egregious manner. Had Larson been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, he could have faced up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
In Defense of Animals sent a letter to District Attorney Brian P. Green with 14,194 signatures urging maximum prosecution. The petition demanded the maximum prison time and fines, mandatory psychological evaluation or anger management counseling, in addition to, and the maximum animal-access restriction permitted by law -- a lifetime ban from harboring, residing with, or having custody or control of any animals.
"It's appalling that the court only banned this offender from keeping animals for a single year after such a brutal act of violence. Larson should have served the full term available and been required to pay a substantial fine. Offenders who intentionally kill an animal should face a lifetime ban," said Doll Stanley, In Defense of Animals' Justice for Animals Senior Campaigner.
"Cases like Larson's have the hallmarks of coercive control and psychological terror," said Marilyn Kroplick, M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist and President of In Defense of Animals. "When an abuser intentionally tortures and kills his partner's beloved companion animal, it is rarely an isolated incident -- it is a calculated method to manipulate, traumatize, and exert power over the victim. Research consistently shows 'The Link' between acts of animal cruelty and escalating human violence. An attack on a woman's companion is a glaring red flag for severe domestic violence and a broader public safety threat. By handing down such a lenient sentence, the court has dangerously underestimated a highly volatile offender."
A strong legal response reinforces that deliberate violence - whether directed at an animal or used as a psychological weapon to terrorize a partner -- will be treated with appropriate seriousness under the law. It deters future acts by demonstrating meaningful consequences, supports early intervention in behavior that may otherwise escalate, and affirms public confidence in the justice system's ability to protect the vulnerable.
* * *
In Defense of Animals is an international animal protection organization with over 250,000 supporters defending animals, the environment, and their guardians through education and campaigns, as well as hands-on rescue facilities in California, India, South Korea, and rural Mississippi, since 1983. www.idausa.org/justice4animals
* * *
Original text here: https://www.idausa.org/campaign/justice-for-animals/latest-news/media-release-appalling-sentence-for-new-york-man-who-brutally-kicked-girlfriends-cat-to-death/
[Category: Animals]
Human Rights Watch Issues Commentary: Hong Kong Authorities Target Booksellers
NEW YORK, July 16 [Category: International] -- Human Rights Watch issued the following commentary on July 14, 2026, by China researcher Yalkun Uluyol:
* * *
Hong Kong Authorities Target Booksellers
City's Two Oldest Independent Bookstores Barred from Annual Book Fair
-
As the annual Hong Kong Book Fair opens this week, two of the city's best-known independent bookstores, Elmbook and Luckwin, won't be there. On July 2, authorities barred them from exhibiting. Soon after, Elmbook announced it would close on its 30th anniversary in April 2027, when its lease ends.
While officials did not say
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, July 16 [Category: International] -- Human Rights Watch issued the following commentary on July 14, 2026, by China researcher Yalkun Uluyol:
* * *
Hong Kong Authorities Target Booksellers
City's Two Oldest Independent Bookstores Barred from Annual Book Fair
-
As the annual Hong Kong Book Fair opens this week, two of the city's best-known independent bookstores, Elmbook and Luckwin, won't be there. On July 2, authorities barred them from exhibiting. Soon after, Elmbook announced it would close on its 30th anniversary in April 2027, when its lease ends.
While officials did not saywhy they barred the bookstores, Beijing-controlled media accused independent bookstores of selling books that "blatantly smear" and promote "soft resistance" against the Chinese and Hong Kong governments.
Hong Kong authorities arrested Book Punch's Pong Yat-ming in March and Hunter Bookstore's Leticia Wong in June for alleged "sedition." Both cases reportedly involve the biography of Jimmy Lai, founder of the shuttered Apple Daily and a democracy advocate serving a 20-year prison sentence for his activism.
In 2015, Apple Daily published an expose finding that the Chinese government controls, including through shell companies, Hong Kong's three main bookstore chains and more than 80 percent of the city's publishing market. That year, Beijing also abducted five independent Hong Kong booksellers.
Censorship surged after Beijing imposed the draconian National Security Law on Hong Kong in 2020, following massive pro-democracy demonstrations in 2019. Since then, authorities have barred booksellers from Hong Kong's Book Fair. Public and school libraries removed hundreds of titles deemed "sensitive," including George Orwell's 1984.
Since late 2023, authorities imposed tax audits on at least six independent bookstores. Courts fined Pong and Book Punch in 2026 for permit violations over Spanish classes and comedy shows.
Government harassment has forced closures. In 2024, Mount Zero Books closed after receiving warning letters from government departments and anonymous complaints. Hundreds gathered on the bookstore's last day to bid farewell to its book talks, concerts, and community events. Another bookstore, Have a Nice Stay, similarly cited anonymous complaints and "elusive red lines" among reasons for closure.
But Hong Kongers have remained defiant. Two weeks after her arrest, Wong reopened Hunter Bookstore and adorned its window with a red heart made of sticky notes. Following news of Elmbook's imminent closure, readers flocked to the store. Internet users created an online map of independent bookstores, while booksellers organized alternative book fairs.
Beijing may be escalating its efforts to control Hong Kong people's minds, but in a city where freedom is more than a memory, many remain steadfast in refusing silence.
***
Original text here: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/07/14/hong-kong-authorities-target-booksellers
Brain Stimulation Safely Restored Sense of Touch for Up to Decade, First and Longest Human Study of Its Kind Shows
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, July 16 -- The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center issued the following news release:
* * *
Brain Stimulation Safely Restored Sense of Touch for Up to Decade, First and Longest Human Study of Its Kind Shows
University of Pittsburgh and University of Chicago researchers delivered 168 million pulses of brain stimulation in five individuals across 27 cumulative years without a single serious adverse event -- clearing a key hurdle for clinical-grade brain-computer interface devices that could one day restore touch, hearing or vision.
-
What if people who have lost
... Show Full Article
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, July 16 -- The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center issued the following news release:
* * *
Brain Stimulation Safely Restored Sense of Touch for Up to Decade, First and Longest Human Study of Its Kind Shows
University of Pittsburgh and University of Chicago researchers delivered 168 million pulses of brain stimulation in five individuals across 27 cumulative years without a single serious adverse event -- clearing a key hurdle for clinical-grade brain-computer interface devices that could one day restore touch, hearing or vision.
-
What if people who have lostthe ability to feel their hands could get that sense back -- not through a prosthetic glove, but through tiny pulses of electricity delivered directly to the brain?
A decade of work by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Chicago, published today in Science Translational Medicine, shows that this approach is not only possible but safe over the long haul. Across five volunteers with spinal cord injuries, the team delivered 168 million pulses of brain stimulation via implanted brain-computer interface device over a combined 27 years of implant time without any serious adverse events -- making this the first study of its kind and the longest-running study of the safety of intracortical microstimulation in humans to date.
"This research plants a flag in the ground for the safety and utility of using brain-computer interfaces to deliver sensory stimulation in clinical settings and, eventually, in people's homes," said senior author Robert Gaunt, Ph.D., associate professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation and a member of Pitt's Rehab Neural Engineering Labs. "For brain-computer interfaces to have real impact on people's lives, they need to keep working safely and reliably for years. This study shows that microstimulation in the brain can do exactly that."
Brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs, have captured public imagination in recent years, fueled by companies racing to translate the technology into products that could help people move, feel or communicate again. But the fundamental question remains: Do these systems hold up over years of daily use, and are they safe?
Pitt's Rehab Neural Engineering Labs, working with colleagues at the University of Chicago, have been at the frontier of BCI science since the early 2010s. In 2012, the Pitt investigator-led team was among the first in the world to implant electrodes in the motor cortex to let a paralyzed person control a robotic arm and later, in 2015, pioneered the approach of stimulating the sensory cortex to pair movement with a sense of touch. The University of Chicago then implanted their first participant with electrodes in sensory and motor cortex in 2020.
The new publication, made possible by five pioneer volunteers who committed years of their lives to the research, answers the field's most pressing long-term questions. Is stimulation safe? Do stimulation-evoked sensations drift to other parts of the body or fade over time? Are there unintended side effects? The team's answer, in short: stimulation stayed safe, stable and localized -- even after 10 years in one participant.
Working with those volunteers, the team found that electrical pulses delivered to the hand region of the somatosensory cortex evoked sensations that stayed mapped to the hand and did not shift to other body parts over time.
Those sensations rarely lingered after stimulation was switched off -- on average, only one such "persistent sensation" occurred per roughly 23,000 stimulation trials, and the vast majority lasted less than 10 seconds. None were painful and none required medical intervention.
Finally, the electrodes became less sensitive over time: 64% remained functional on average -- including 60% of one participant's electrodes after a full decade in the brain, though electrodes demonstrated accelerated decay later on in the study.
"This shows that this technology doesn't just have to be a short-term solution we test in the lab; industry can start developing long term take-home solutions for patients," said lead author Charles Greenspon, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the Department of Neurological Surgery at the University of Chicago.
The implications stretch beyond touch. Because the same kind of microstimulation is being tested in other brain regions that process vision or hearing, the safety data reported in this paper lays the groundwork for clinical-grade neuromodulation devices that could one day help restore lost senses more broadly.
The University of Pittsburgh and University of Chicago collaboration is ongoing. The teams continue to improve the abilities of microstimulation, including how to make the sensations feel more natural, how to better control the device when stimulation is turned on and how to simplify calibrating the many parameters that control sensations.
This research was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the NIH BRAIN Initiative, the National Eye Institute, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (grants UH3 NS107714, R35 NS122333, U01 NS108922, U01 NS123125, R01 NS130302, R01 NS131953) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (contracts N66001-16-C-4051 and N66001-10-C-4056). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or DARPA.
Additional authors on the paper are Taylor Hobbs, Robin Lienkamper, Ph.D., Joel Ye, Tyler Simpson, M.S., Jeffrey Weiss, M.S., David Weir, M.S., Debbie Harrington, C.C.R.P., Jorge Gonzalez-Martinez, M.D., Ph.D., Michael Boninger, M.D., and Jennifer Collinger, Ph.D., all of Pitt; Ali H. Alamri, Natalya Shelchkova, Ph.D., Ashley Van Driesche, David Satzer, M.D., Giacomo Valle, Ph.D., Nicholas Hatsopoulos, Ph.D., Peter Warnke, M.D., John Downey, Ph.D., of the University of Chicago; Ceci Verbaarschot, Ph.D., of University of Texas-Southwestern; and Lee Miller, Ph.D., of Northwestern University.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.upmc.com/media/news/071526-pitt-study-shows-brain-stimulation-restores-touch
[Category: Health Care]
ABEM Publishes 2026 Core Content of Emergency Medical Services Medicine
EAST LANSING, Michigan, July 16 (TNSjou) -- The American Board of Emergency Medicine issued the following news:
* * *
ABEM Publishes 2026 Core Content of Emergency Medical Services Medicine
The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) has published The 2026 Core Content of Emergency Medical Services Medicine in Prehospital Emergency Care. The updated Core Content defines the foundational knowledge base for physicians in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and supports the delivery of high-quality care in the out-of-hospital setting, physician medical oversight of EMS clinicians, and the operation
... Show Full Article
EAST LANSING, Michigan, July 16 (TNSjou) -- The American Board of Emergency Medicine issued the following news:
* * *
ABEM Publishes 2026 Core Content of Emergency Medical Services Medicine
The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) has published The 2026 Core Content of Emergency Medical Services Medicine in Prehospital Emergency Care. The updated Core Content defines the foundational knowledge base for physicians in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and supports the delivery of high-quality care in the out-of-hospital setting, physician medical oversight of EMS clinicians, and the operationof EMS systems.
Approved by the EMS Subboard on March 25, 2026, the 2026 Core Content reflects the growth and evolution of EMS Medicine as a subspecialty of Emergency Medicine. The revisions were informed by a job analysis survey distributed by ABEM to current EMS-certified physicians and include updated topic areas identified as highly important and frequently encountered in practice.
The Core Content is used to define the scope of EMS Medicine, guide the blueprint for subspecialty certification and continuing certification examinations, inform fellowship curriculum development, and help physicians understand the content of clinical practice in EMS Medicine.
The 2026 updated publication will be used as the basis for ABEM EMS examination content starting with the 2027 examination administration.
In addition to incorporating advances in the field, the revised Core Content reorganizes major content areas and individual subtopics to reduce redundancy, improve clarity, and align more closely with the educational framework used to prepare physicians practicing in EMS.
A link to the publication is available on the ABEM website, and originally published in Prehospital Emergency Care. The article is available open access to all readers.
View the 2026 Core Content of EMS (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42348664/)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.abem.org/news/abem-publishes-2026-core-content-of-emergency-medical-services-medicine/
[Category: Medical]
