Even healthy brains decline with age. Here's what you can do

President Trump claimed that Coca-Cola in the U.S. would switch back to using cane sugar, but when pressed for details, the company didn’t confirm the change—leaving everyone wondering whether this was a real shift or just another offhand remark.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about soda—it’s about how companies navigate public statements from influential figures, especially when those statements aren’t entirely accurate. Coca-Cola’s vague response keeps them out of hot water for now, but it also highlights the tricky dance between business and politics. If the switch were real, it could’ve been a big deal for consumers who care about ingredients, but for now, it’s just another "wait and see" moment.

The Senate is gearing up to vote on a bill that would take back $40 billion in previously promised foreign aid, with supporters claiming it’s necessary to cut down on waste and misuse. But opponents argue there’s no solid evidence backing these claims—no comprehensive review of the programs in question was actually done. It’s a classic clash between fiscal hawks and aid advocates, with billions (and reputations) on the line.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about money—it’s about trust. If lawmakers slash aid without clear proof of mismanagement, it could hurt diplomatic relationships and leave vulnerable populations in the lurch. At the same time, taxpayers deserve to know their dollars aren’t being squandered. The real question: Is this a principled stand or a political stunt?

President Trump claims Coca-Cola has agreed to switch to cane sugar in its flagship soda after his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., publicly criticized sweeteners like high-fructose corn syrup. Coca-Cola responded vaguely, saying "more details are to come," leaving room for speculation about whether this is a done deal or just political posturing.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about soda—it’s a collision of politics, health debates, and corporate PR. High-fructose corn syrup has long been a target of health advocates, and if Coca-Cola actually makes this change, it could signal a shift in how big food brands respond to political pressure. But until Coke confirms specifics, it’s unclear whether this is real policy or just headline-grabbing. Either way, it keeps the conversation about sugar and health in the spotlight.

In a groundbreaking medical achievement, eight healthy babies have been born in the UK using an experimental technique that combines DNA from three people—two parents and a donor—to prevent mothers from passing on rare genetic diseases to their children. Scientists say this could be a game-changer for families at risk of transmitting mitochondrial disorders.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another science headline—it’s a real-world leap forward for families who’ve faced the heartbreak of losing children to incurable genetic conditions. By tweaking how embryos are created, researchers are offering hope where there was none before. Sure, there are ethical debates (messing with DNA always sparks those), but for parents who’ve endured the pain of these diseases, it’s a lifeline. The success of these births could pave the way for wider use, reshaping how we tackle inherited illnesses.

In Georgia—a state with alarmingly high maternal death rates—a determined woman is battling bureaucratic hurdles and systemic gaps to open a birthing center. The story highlights how dangerous childbirth has become in the U.S., especially for marginalized communities, and how grassroots efforts are trying to change that.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about one woman’s fight—it’s a snapshot of a broken system. Maternal mortality in the U.S. is worse than in other wealthy nations, and Georgia’s rates are among the worst. When hospitals close or care is inaccessible, alternatives like birth centers can be lifesavers. This story matters because it shows both the crisis and the people fighting to fix it.