Search This Blog

Sunday, September 28, 2025

7 Minutes Outside: The Collapse of Childhood Play

 Studies suggest that today’s kids get an average of 4-7 minutes of unstructured time outside a day, while they spend 7-8 hours a day in front of screens.

With a youth mental health crisis also sweeping the nation (rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and diagnosed mental health disorders like ADHD are all at record highs), it’s not hard to imagine that the correlation between kids’ indoor confinement and their mental health struggles is more than a coincidence.

The mental health ramifications of too much screen time are easy to track, and are heavily studied. But the downstream effects of not enough time outside are equally startling. Free play and unstructured time are foundational to a child’s well-being, and in America, our kids aren’t getting it.

Seven minutes a day is barely enough time to begin to imagine the premise of a game or an imaginary adventure. Seven minutes a day is barely the amount of time it takes to walk back and forth from the bus stop. It’s not even long enough to go for a walk around the block.

Why Aren’t the Kids Outside?

The twenty-first century has provided us with a perfect storm of conditions keeping kids away from the outdoors: screens are alluring, the outside is ‘dangerous,’ and parents encourage their kids towards sedentary “for your own good” activities (math olympiad! French tutoring! after school clubs!).

Parents fear the dangers of the outdoors. In the modern world, everything from crime statistics to urban design itself lead parents to keep their kids on a short leash. Urban settings don’t have much room for free play; parks and playgrounds and other child-centric outdoor spaces are strangely sparse, as if urban designers wanted a world without kids in it. More apartment complexes are built with dog-washing stations than playgrounds.

The modern world seems to have been built by people who forgot what childhood is, and fears of crime keep parents nervous about letting their kids freely use the spaces that do exist.

But separate from kid-centric space or the lack thereof, kids are busy. Their days are consumed by ever-expanding school requirements, structured extracurricular activities, and of course the ever-present lure of screen time – to the point that even in suburban neighborhoods with big backyards, kids are barely ever venturing outside.

Which is how we end up with kids getting seven to eight hours of screen time a day, but only four to seven minutes of unstructured free time outside – the latter of which people of our grandparents’ generations couldn’t have even imagined.

The “unstructured” part is important – “time outside” in a blanket sense isn’t enough. Spending an hour on the field for soccer practice gives kids the benefit of fresh air and sunshine and physical movement, but it isn’t giving them the psychological benefits of free play.

Unstructured means time and space away from the rules and instructions of an adult. It exists fully in the wild and whimsical world of the child: free, unimpeded, child-directed, and often tinged with a heavy dose of imagination. There are no set goals of the kind that exist in PE class or a sports club. It’s pure and unfettered, and it’s a biologically hardwired need for children’s development.

Mental Health Crisis in Childhood

Parents worry about the dangers of the outside world, but what about the dangers of the on-screen world, where grooming and exploitation are common occurrences, where adults behind screens pose as other children and talk to young people too naive to know what to watch out for? What about the physical dangers of a sedentary life?

Seventy-seven percent of American youth ages 17-24 are ineligible for military service. Thirty-three percent of 17-24 year olds are ineligible due to obesity. Of the young people who meet the weight requirements, another 25 percent don’t meet the physical fitness standards. Other physical conditions and mental health disorders are also leading causes of ineligibility.

The poor health of America’s youth has many factors – poor diet, exposure to environmental toxins, a rise in chronic conditions, and countless other variables. But with 30 percent of elementary schools no longer requiring daily recess, and 28 states without any requirements around recess at all, neither schools nor parents are consistently defending kids’ free outdoor time.

And what about the psychological dangers of not getting time outside to play?

Twenty percent of American adolescents ages 12-17 report experiencing symptoms of anxiety in the past two weeks, while 18 percent of adolescents report symptoms of depression. Forty percent of high schoolers report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness. In 2023, the CDC found that 9 percent of adolescents had attempted suicide.

Of course, not all of this traces back to time spent outside, nor lack of it. But as we’re depriving kids of a fundamental part of their development, such a deficit might be at least partially to blame for the negative outcomes that follow.

As researcher and psychologist Peter Gray says, “Children are designed, by nature, to play and explore on their own, independently of adults.” Gray is a fierce defender of kids’ physiological and psychological need for play, and his book Free to Learn makes the case for the importance of self-directed time for a child’s development, with ripple effects into everything from academic performance to life outcomes.

Gray isn’t alone. As Lenore Skenazy argues in her book Free Range Kids, children need exactly what the term “free range” suggests – the ability to run wild and be free, not cooped up in the cages created by four walls and an adult’s supervision. Skenazy made national headlines after letting her 10-year-old ride the New York City subway home alone (unstructured and unsupervised outdoor time at its finest). Those headlines weren’t the good kind. Reporters were quick to title her “America’s worst mom,” and a media feeding frenzy followed (an unwatched child, normal mere decades prior, had become a scandal).

And yet, Skenazy was giving her son what so many others suffer for want of: freedom.

Letting your kids have outdoor time doesn’t require something as radical as giving them free range of New York City. Most parents would understandably balk at that. But there’s a wide swath of options between “wander New York City alone” and “have no time outside at all,” and frustratingly few find themselves in that median.

Even programs that give kids time outside – things like private schools with on-campus gardens, forest schools, or homeschool groups focused on time in nature – are considered frivolous, peculiar, and radical, respectively. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a minimum of 30-60 minutes of outdoor free play for children two and under. The CDC suggests a minimum of three hours of unstructured and vigorous free play for preschoolers (ages 3-5), with at least an hour of that time being spent outdoors, and at least an hour of vigorous physical activity (preferably outdoors) for school-aged children (ages 6-17).

These are all recommended baselines from some of America’s most mainstream health authorities. Many independent psychologists, developmental experts, and education researchers would consider those numbers to be the bare minimum.

Charlotte Mason, the nineteenth-century British educator whose methodology is still used today by large swaths of homeschoolers, argued that children should spend four to six hours a day outside whenever possible: “Never be within doors when you can rightly be without.”

Mason didn’t see outdoor time as “recess,” but as a fundamental part of a child’s education in its own right. For the early years, she considered it even more important than formal instruction, helping children develop their attentiveness, wonder, and observational skills. She advocated nature walks, observations of weather patterns and wildlife, keeping a nature journal, and long uninterrupted swaths of free play.

This unstructured playtime is part of the whimsy of childhood, but it also plays a critical role. Free play supports kids’ cognitive development, imagination, and executive function. Physical activity develops strength, coordination, and motor skills, and is shown to reduce anxiety. Studies suggest exposure to the microbiome of the dirt leads to a strengthened immune system, and can decrease stress. Exposure to natural sunlight supports a child’s natural circadian rhythm.

And of course, exposure to sunlight also improves vitamin D levels – the lack of which can cause everything from fatigue and a weakened immune system to, you guessed it, anxiety and depression.

Our kids are struggling, physically and psychologically, for want of time for free play and time outdoors. That fresh air and freedom, no matter how basic it seems, is fundamental to their health and success, as necessary to their health (if not their survival) as air and water.

Our parents and grandparents knew this by intuition; our forebears never considered it could even be a question, but our culture has slowly let it erode to become only the tiniest fraction of our kids’ lives.

Free play and time outdoors is indivisible from health and success. If we want to raise a healthy, happy, and thriving generation, then their outdoor time is a resource we must defend.

Hannah Frankman Hood is the founder of renegadeEducator. She grew up homeschooled and skipped college to go straight into the startup world, and has now been working in alternative education for almost 10 years. She was previously a Program Manager at Praxis, a Hazlitt Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education, and an instructor at The Objective Standard institute.

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/seven-minutes-outside-the-collapse-of-childhood-play/

President Trump Can Help American Biotech Compete with China

 The Importance of American Biotech to America’s National Security

  • The direct and indirect economic contribution of the U.S. biopharmaceutical sector is estimated to be $1.65 trillion, including $800 billion in direct output in 2022, and an additional $850 billion through its suppliers and other sectors; this combined output impact represents 3.6% of all U.S. output (Link).
  • Small and mid-sized biotech firms are the source of the lion’s share of American biotech innovation: all 50 first-in-class (FIC) oncology drugs that were approved by the FDA from 2010 through 2020, large pharma was the sole originator of only 14% of FIC cancer drugs, whereas small biotech’s originated 46% (Link).

China is Threatening America’s Biotech Sector

  • China’s biotech sector is rapidly expanding – this goal was explicitly laid out in China’s 14th and current Five-Year Plan (2021-25), explicitly prioritizing life sciences and biotechnology as national research priorities. The plan aims for China to lead the global bioeconomy by 2035 and includes commitments to increase biotechnology-related R&D investments by more than 10 percent annually (Link).
  • Big pharma is increasingly sourcing new product candidates from Chinese firms. Just this year, through June, U.S. drugmakers have signed 14 deals potentially worth $18.3 billion to license drugs from China-based companies (Link).
  • This risks a cascading effect where investor capital moves to Chinese biotech investments in an accelerating pattern: as more capital moves to the Chinese market and out of U.S. investments, the Chinese market could build momentum by reinvesting those resources in additional projects.
  • On the flip side, America’s small biotechs will be faced with an increasingly dire capital crunch, as scientists are unable to attract private capital investment. This comes as investors are already wondering if the whole American biotech model—high-risk R&D , costly funding, political uncertainty and long waits for payoffs—is simply broken (Link).
    • “A malaise hangs over biotech as investors struggle to find reasons for optimism that a biotech rally will begin anytime soon. The macroeconomic factors do not appear particularly favorable, with inflation persistent and concerns about economic growth. Developments from Washington are incessant and most seem more bad than good. Firings, funding freezes, meeting cancellations, and pharmaceutical tariffs suggest there will be disruptions to key pillars of the ecosystem, but few have confidence about when and how they will manifest. Given the uncertainty, it’s no surprise that generalist interest is meager.”  - Cowen Biotech Thermometer 2025 (Link).
  • According to National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) report released in April, China is likely to surpass America’s biotech industry within 3 years (Link).

The Medicare Negotiation Program is Exacerbating the Substantial Threats Facing American Biotech

  • Former President Biden’s Medicare “negotiation” program is a looming threat to America’s small biotech firms’ ability to continue innovating in the face of U.S. price controls and China’s increasingly competitive biotech sector. This is creating a perfect storm for China’s rise.
  • The IRA makes it nearly impossible for a pre-market biotech company to “go it alone” and research multiple clinical trials at once – they do not have the capital to make these substantial investments concurrently. And with the clock for negotiation starting at first FDA approval, this means that their only option is to partner with Big Pharma. And yet, Big Pharma is increasingly looking for discounted products in China, leaving small biotech firms in the U.S. without large partners willing to work with innovators in the U.S.

The Small Biotech Innovation Act Would Help Level the Playing Field for America’s Small Biotech Firms

  • The Small Biotech Innovation Act (SBIA) seeks to address this very issue by enhancing and extending protections for small biotech innovators. The bill aims to ensure that companies focused heavily on R&D—and often with just a few key pipeline assets—can continue to take risks and drive medical breakthroughs without being prematurely penalized by Medicare price setting.
  • The SBIA creates a true safe harbor for America’s small biotech manufacturers by incentivizing these companies to “go it alone” and seek to commercialize products in-house, thus growing America’s premarket small biotech firms into competitive midsized R&D innovators.
  • This legislation would help preserve the entrepreneurial spirit of the America’s biotech innovation and explicitly bars Chinese biotech companies from qualifying for the new R&D-intensive small biotech manufacturer exception, bolstering the competitive playing field for the American biotech ecosystem.

 Dr. Robert Goldberg is Vice President of Research at the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

Jerry Rogers is editor at RealClearPolicy and RealClearHealth. He hosts 'The Jerry Rogers Show' on WBAL NewsRadio 1090/FM 101.5 and the Federal Newswire's ‘The Business of America’. Follow him on Twitter @JerryRogersShow.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2025/09/23/president_trump_can_help_american_biotech_compete_with_china_1136621.html

The Case for Individual Decision-Making in COVID Vaccination Strategies

 COVID vaccination is no longer one-size-fits-all: US health officials now leave booster decisions to individuals, and the WHO urges “focused protection” for those at highest risk. Yet without hard numbers on whose immunity fades fastest, personal choice is a shot in the dark. A new study maps each person’s immune rise and fall—offering the data we need to turn guesswork into tailored guidance.

The challenge

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) today unanimously recommended that vaccination for COVID-19 be determined by individual decision-making.” 

– Department of Health and Human Services

Echoing the Great Barrington Declaration’s call for “focused protection,” the World Health Organization has, since March 2023, stopped recommending routine boosters for people at only moderate or low risk and instead urges priority coverage for those most vulnerable. To put that targeted strategy on a solid footing and inform individual decision-making, we need precise, individual-level data on how immunity waxes and wanes, insights that might let us pinpoint who loses protection fastest—and who should be first in line when the next round of shots rolls out.

The study, building on a focused protection approach, tracked 2500 people in rural Japan during the Alpha and Omicron COVID waves. Nearly all individuals received the standard two-dose course of Pfizer’s vaccine, with a smaller number receiving Moderna’s vaccine. Researchers mapped their immune response over a period of about 18 months. Antibody titers and their longitudinal trajectories were anything but uniform; some people held sky-high levels for months, others never rose far, and many sat in between. Boosters lifted everyone, even for the immunocompromised and elderly, but while the booster buys extra headroom, the countdown to decline continues.

The researchers, using the rise and fall of antibody titers, categorized six groups: three with archetypal patterns and three intermediate. 

  • Durable “good responders” with antibody levels remaining high for months, offering the strongest protection. Most are in their late 30s to late 50s, proving sustained immunity isn’t restricted to the very young. The booster lifts their antibody levels and keeps them high.
  • Rapid declining “poor responders” whose antibody titers soar early but plunge quickly, leaving only moderate immune defense. The group is primarily composed of adults in their 30s and 40s, indicating that even younger cohorts can lose protection quickly. Antibody titers surge after the booster, but like the original immunization, slide quickly
  • Vulnerable “poor responders” whose titers start and stay low, translating into the weakest neutralization against the earliest COVID strains. While the cohort’s average age was around 68, middle-aged participants also appeared, highlighting an added risk that isn’t confined to the elderly. Boosters raise the titers, but in keeping with their overall immunologic response, the rise is less, leaving them the weakest but better than before.

Roughly 60% of the “durable” remained durable after the booster, but the other 40% slipped into less robust categories. Meanwhile, more than half of the initial vulnerable group and over a third of the rapid decliners remained stuck in their same low-protection patterns despite receiving the extra shot. Overall, past performance was no guarantee of future results, as half of the patients changed categorization. The amount of antibody present at the time of the boost showed only a weak correlation with subsequent levels. 

The most vigorous defense was seen in women, and anyone who felt post-shot side effects; chronic conditions (diabetes, heart disease, hypertension) dampened the response. Mixing vaccine brands pushed titers higher. Cellular immunity tracks the same durability hierarchy as antibodies

Large studies agree that a bout of COVID-19 leaves behind meaningful—but far from uniform—protection. Meta-analyses indicate that natural immunity reduces the risk of symptomatic reinfection by approximately two-thirds overall. In the Fukushima cohort, prior infection did boost peak antibody levels; yet, those “recovered” volunteers still fell into the same durable, intermediate, and vulnerable response groups as infection-naïve participants, showing that infection alone doesn’t guarantee a high or long-lasting immune trajectory. Overall infection rates were low and virtually identical across groups (≈5–6 %), yet when people became infected, differed sharply: every infection in the rapid-decliner group occurred within 200 days, whereas the other groups saw infections spread out over the whole study interval. The trajectory of each person’s immune response, as measured by their antibodies, was a better predictor of breakthrough infections and their timing than any single moment in our immune defenses. Interestingly, the researchers found that IgA levels, which are concentrated in nasal defenses, were the most effective single measure of the booster response and could be obtained from a single serum sample. 

The Big Picture

COVID immunization rates are declining for various reasons, but protection for those at risk and the immunocompromised remains a public health priority. The study provides some data-driven groupings, with three standouts:

  • Durable—antibodies and T-cells stay high (≈ 30 % of people).
  • Rapid-decliner—big early spike, quick fade (≈ 15 %).
  • Vulnerable—low from the start (≈ 15 %).

Everyone else sat in intermediate territory—a single serum IgA measurement soon after the booster, flagged who would later get a breakthrough infection. Data-driven immune profiling—and a simple IgA blood test—could refine medical decision-making regarding who receives future COVID-19 boosters and when. The work has limitations, most notably that it covers only one of the multiple booster rounds we experienced, and COVID-19 shape-shifts, so that the patterns with one variant may differ from those with others. 

The findings are clear: roughly one-third of people stay well-protected, one-third drift into middling territory, and the rest either plunge quickly or never rise far at all—and a simple post-booster IgA blood test can flag who is on the risky paths. Sharing such individual-level metrics, rather than broad averages, is the key to making “individual decision-making” more than a slogan and to ensuring boosters reach the people who genuinely need them most. It is not sufficient to simply recommend individual decision-making when we do not widely share the data or craft guidance that helps to frame those individual discussions. 

Source: Longitudinal antibody titers measured after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination can identify individuals at risk for subsequent infection Science Translational Medicine DOI: 1126/scitranslmed.adv4214

Dr. Charles Dinerstein, M.D., MBA, FACS is Director of Medicine at the American Council on Science and Health. He has over 25 years of experience as a vascular surgeon.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2025/09/26/case-individual-decision-making-covid-vaccination-strategies-49741

FDA Vape Regs Need Bold Reform

 Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary were present at a raid outside Chicago that seized 600,000 units of illegal vapes.  

The bust reflects a wider public health scandal: more than 80 percent of the vaping market comprises illicit products, a majority of which are smuggled in as disposable devices from China.

Although warehouse and convenience store raids make good television, they won’t put a dent in the illicit market. But even if they somehow did, many of the 25 million current adult vapers who use safer, if illicit, options will switch back to lethal cigarettes. The cigarette companies will be grateful for return customers, but no one else will be. 

How did we get to the point where criminals are meeting Americans’ demand for safer nicotine products while the official regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is effectively missing in action?

The culprit is the FDA’s sorely misjudged efforts to protect young people by erecting near-insurmountable barriers to authorizing lawful vapes.

The biggest problem by far is that manufacturers of new tobacco products must file expensive pre-market applications in pursuit of the essential FDA designation called “appropriate for the protection of public health.”

Under the FDA’s discretion to interpret and define the “appropriateness” standard, which was granted by Congress in the 2009 Tobacco Control Act, manufacturers must provide scientific evidence showing that the benefits of each individual product to the population as a whole outweigh the risks.

In short, although it is well established that vaping is undeniably less hazardous than smoking, and have helped millions quit smoking, FDA has decided that the risk of any – any --youth initiation of even vastly safer products outweighs the benefit of cessation through switching by at-risk adult smokers.

This approach has caused havoc in the market for smoke-free products and is costing the lives of smokers. In almost ten years, the FDA has authorized only 39 out-of-date vaping products with limited consumer appeal, compared with almost one thousand new cigarettes – yes, cigarettes.  

What to do? Instead of using an “appropriateness” standard that tries to second-guess whether youth or adult smokers will use products before they even reach the market, the FDA should base its interventions on what actually happens. To achieve this, it must monitor both the illicit and legitimate markets, and target enforcement wherever harmful effects emerge.

The FDA also needs to streamline its wildly expensive and cumbersome application process for new products that deliver nicotine without smoke. Currently, the agency requires manufacturers to submit extensive scientific data for each individual new product. Instead, it should issue clear, pre-established product standards of safety, quality, packaging, and marketing.

The European Union and the United Kingdom regulate vape products this way, making thousands of vape products available with no adverse consequences to users. These reforms will reduce review time to the 180 days required by law, and cut application costs by a factor of at least ten, putting them closer to the estimates made by Congress.

Finally, the FDA must invest heavily in honest consumer education on the differential risks of combustible and smoke-free tobacco. American consumers have been badly misinformed about the general safety of nicotine and the considerable difference in health risks between smoked tobacco and use of smoke-free delivery systems. Too many health professionals are also confused.

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, a self-declared nicotine pouch user, knows these basic facts. “I think the nicotine pouches are probably the safest way to consume nicotine,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview this summer. “Vapes are second. But the thing we really want to get away from are cigarettes.”  

The illegal vaping market now largely fills the demand from millions seeking safer cigarette substitutes. The FDA should let American businesses do that job.

 

Sally Satel MD is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Brad Rodu DDS is a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2025/09/26/fda_vape_regs_need_bold_reform_1137406.html

Taking Meds You Don’t Need To Spite Trump While Pregnant Makes You A Horrible Mother

 Earlier this week, President Trump cautioned pregnant women against taking Tylenol unless it is medically necessary, as the active ingredient, acetaminophen, may potentially increase the risk of autism. In response, numerous pregnant women have taken to social media to share videos of themselves, appearing healthy while defiantly taking Tylenol as a demonstration of their trust in science. While their actions may not affect Trump, they could pose risks to their babies.

The prevalence of autism diagnoses among American children is alarmingly increasing. According to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2022, 1 in 31 children aged 8 years had been diagnosed with autism. Some attribute this rise to heightened public awareness and more effective screening methods.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took office as secretary of Health and Human Services, he made a firm commitment to uncover the underlying causes of the rising autism rates. After collaborating with a team of researchers for several months, Kennedy presented his findings to President Trump. The research indicated a link between acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, and autism. This conclusion was drawn from several existing studies, including a review conducted by Dr. Andrea Baccarelli, a dean at Harvard University’s School of Public Health.

The finding prompted a major news conference on Sept. 22, in which President Trump, joined by Secretary Kennedy and esteemed health advisers, made an urgent public announcement. Trump strongly advised pregnant women to avoid Tylenol unless absolutely necessary (the medication has long been the only go-to remedy for fever reduction during pregnancy). Additionally, Secretary Kennedy urged doctors to exercise their “best judgment” in prescribing acetaminophen to pregnant women, recommending the “lowest effective dose” for the shortest duration required. This guidance emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the health of both mother and child during this critical time.

Since the news conference, netizens uncovered a 2017 Twitter post from Tylenol, which stated: “We actually don’t recommend using any of our products while pregnant. Thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns today.”

President Trump’s caution regarding a possible connection between Tylenol and autism sparked immediate backlash. Detractors highlighted another study that found no link between acetaminophen and autism. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board accused Secretary Kennedy of “carrying water for his friends in the plaintiffs bar” and raised concerns about Baccarelli’s objectivity, given his role as an expert witness in an ongoing lawsuit against Tylenol’s manufacturer, Kenvue Inc.

Questioning the integrity of a study or the motivations of scientists is often a part of scientific discourse. Since scientific understanding is not always definitive, these debates are not only necessary but also crucial, because they ensure a more thorough examination of the facts and guide us towards truth, ultimately benefiting public health and safety.

However, it is concerning to see certain pregnant liberal women, who have no fever and therefore no legitimate medical reason to take Tylenol, sharing videos of themselves consuming Tylenol, sometimes with a handful of pills. These posts frequently come with captions like “trusting science,” and they appear more as political statements against Trump than genuine health advocacy.

Dr. Nicole Saphier, a mother of three boys and a contributor to Fox News, raised a warning on X.com: “Pregnant women popping Tylenol like Tic Tacs just to stick it to Trump — please stop. Don’t weaponize your pregnancy for a political point. Consider acetaminophen only when absolutely necessary, for the shortest duration and lowest dose, even the makers of Tylenol say this.”

Saphier makes an important point. Why take a medication when you’re not sick? Even if there’s no concrete evidence linking acetaminophen to autism, acetaminophen has known side effects that could still affect you and your baby’s health. Placing political resistance above the well-being of you and your unborn child is not only reckless but potentially dangerous.

Imagine if Trump advised pregnant women against using marijuana. Would some of these women react by doing the opposite as a way to oppose him, despite the CDC’s warning that cannabis may be harmful to your baby, regardless of how it’s consumed? Such a mindset isn’t an act of bravery; it indicates that, in their minds, their disdain for Trump outweighs their responsibility to safeguard their children. How disheartening is that?

Carrying a life inside you is one of the most extraordinary experiences one can have. Your emotions and actions play a critical role in shaping your child’s psychological and physical well-being. This journey deserves to be filled with joy, love, and positivity. Instead of politically virtual-signaling during your pregnancy, it’s much better to focus on the vital task of nurturing and protecting your unborn child.

Remember, using your pregnancy to advance political agendas won’t affect Trump, but it could profoundly affect your child’s health and future. Prioritize what truly matters.

Helen Raleigh, CFA, is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. She's a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her writings appear in other national media, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Helen is the author of several books, including "Confucius Never Said" and “Backlash: How Communist China's Aggression Has Backfired." Her latest book is "Not Outsiders: Asian Americans’ political activism from the 19th century to today.” Follow her on Twitter: @HRaleighspeaks.

Walmart warns AI will reshape every job, pledges to retrain workers as roles evolve

 Walmart (NYSE:WMT), the nation’s biggest private employer, is preparing for sweeping workforce changes driven by artificial intelligence. Chief Executive Doug McMillon said that AI will alter “virtually every job,” acknowledging that some roles will disappear while new ones are created, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

Executives are mapping out which positions may shrink expand, or remain steady to guide retraining efforts.

“Our goal is to create the opportunity for everybody to make it to the other side,” McMillon said at a workforce conference in Bentonville, Arkansas.

For now, the retailer expects its global head count of roughly 2.1 million employees to stay flat over the next three years, even as revenue grows. But the makeup of those jobs will shift, said Chief People Officer Donna Morris.

Walmart (NYSE:WMT) already has rolled out AI-powered chatbots for customers, suppliers and staff, and created a new “agent builder” role to design such tools. While automation has  cut some warehouse jobs, the company has added workers in delivery, in-store maintenance, and trucking. McMillon emphasized that people will continue to serve customers directly, rejecting the idea of humanoid robots in stores.

The conversation reflects a broader corporate reckoning with AI’s impact on employment. Leaders at companies from Ford (F) to J.P. Morgan (JPM) have forecast significant job losses, while others, including Accenture (ACN) and Blackstone (BX), are stressing retraining and resilience. OpenAI economist Ronnie Chatterji told the conference that AI’s effects will accelerate in the next 18 to 36 months.

Despite anxiety, some executives argue the labor market can absorb the disruption. Blackstone’s (BX) Joe Baratta noted that past technological shifts have ultimately created new opportunities, the Journal reported.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/walmart-warns-ai-will-reshape-every-job-pledges-to-retrain-workers-as-roles-evolve/ar-AA1NsLXU

Weekly consumer staples check: Kenvue and Keurig Dr. Pepper among top losers

 Wall Street finished higher on Friday after the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation gauge showed results in line with expectations. From a sector-by-sector stance, 10 of the 11 S&P groups closed in positive trading territory, while consumer staples suffered the most.

Let us look at last week's best and worst performers in the consumer staples segment.

Top weekly gainers include:

  • Bungee Global (BG) +3.54%
  • Clorox (CLX) +2.24%
  • Monster Beverage (MNST) +1.89%
  • Altria Group (MO) +1.26%, after announcing deal with South Korea’s KT&G to expand nicotine pouches. Goldman Sachs pointed out that it was positive for the company as it aligns with the company's goal to pursue adjacent growth opportunities in the international smoke-free products market and non-nicotine products over the long term.
  • Philip Morris (PM) +1.19%

Top weekly losers include:  

ETFs to tab consumer staples: (NYSEARCA:VDC), (NYSEARCA:IYK), (NYSEARCA:FSTA), (NYSEARCA:KXI), (NYSEARCA:FXG), (NYSEARCA:RSPS).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstocks/weekly-consumer-staples-check-kenvue-and-keurig-dr-pepper-among-top-losers/ar-AA1Ntk9i