Feed aggregator

[Video below.] Authorities on Thursday evening made public rare video footage from a raid conducted at a residence in the town of Yavne’el, after receiving information that a marriage involving a minor was taking place.

According to officials, when police entered the home, relatives present insisted that the gathering was only a vort, which is permitted under the law and does not constitute a violation.

Despite those claims, a search of the premises revealed items that appeared to contradict that version of events. Officers discovered a kesubah that they believe had been intentionally concealed, along with a glass designated for the customary breaking at a chasunah and a wedding ring.

The released footage shows the kallah, a 16-year-old girl, wearing a white gown, standing near what appeared to be a tefillah for the kallah. Outside the residence, police found a decorated vehicle prepared for the chosson and kallah.

Police said that the chosson is an adult man, and they suspect that the families involved attempted to present the gathering as a simple engagement while in reality conducting an unlawful marriage.

The release of the footage comes as tensions have been rising over a separate incident in the past day, in which a notice circulated announcing a vort between a man said to be around 30 years old and a minor. That situation sparked clashes in the area, as family members confronted local residents and activists who came to protest the planned event.

WATCH:

They arrive in cheerful bottles with names that sound like promises – Daily Brain Boost, Brain Drive, Brain guard+. And Americans, in turn, spend billions of dollars each year chasing the idea of a sharper mind.

This is the logic of the moment: that the self is something to be tuned and upgraded, its limits negotiable through the right regimen of diets, workouts, injections, pills, powders and gummies. Cognitive health, once the domain of aging and illness, has become another frontier for optimization.

“Is this all real or is it all marketing hype? It’s a combination I think,” said Gary Small, a professor emeritus of psychiatry and former director of the UCLA Longevity Center, now at Hackensack Meridian Health. “The science is changing so fast it’s hard for even experts to sort it out.”

About 1 in 5 adults over age 50 use vitamins or supplements specifically to try to boost brain functions like memory, attention or focus, according to a 2021 AARP survey, the most recent update. The global market for nutritional supplements was estimated at $517.1 billion in 2025 and projected to be $862.5 billion by 2033, according to Grand View Research.

Supplements occupy a distinctly permissive corner of American medicine – one where products can be sold without the kind of large, rigorous, double-blind trials federal authorities require for pharmaceuticals, which often involve thousands of people. The Food and Drug Administration provides limited oversight of dietary supplements only after they are on store shelves, largely leaving it to manufacturers to ensure their products are safe and accurately labeled.

Many brain health products are built on how the brain changes in disease – stress that can lead to cell damage, inflammation linked to cognitive decline, amyloid buildup tied to Alzheimer’s.

But showing an effect on those pathways in a lab involving a Petri dish or on animals – or even on patients with illness – doesn’t translate cleanly to improvement in otherwise healthy people’s memory or focus. The industry often blurs that line, marketing disease-adjacent science as everyday enhancement, said Pieter Cohen, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Cohen says the words “brain health” basically mean you “use your imagination and the benefits can be anything you want. … There’s no process by which these claims are vetted, so the consumer can’t rely on anything that is said by the companies or the label itself.”

Jason Wachob, founder and co-CEO of Mindbodygreen, which sells Brain guard+, said skepticism about the supplement category is fair: “The market is noisy and not all products are created equal.”

He asserts his company is built on patented ingredients, clinical doses, and rigorous testing for purity and potency in laboratories certified by the International Organization for Standardization; the company lists relevant studies supporting claims on the product site.

“Our product development starts and ends with science,” Wachob said.

Midi Health Chief Medical Officer Kathleen Jordan said the company selects “our supplements very carefully and only choose to get behind ones we believe in and are the most science supported – and ones we often use ourselves.” Momentous, maker of Brain Drive, declined to comment.

As more interest and money flow into the space, more serious human research is beginning to take shape. The findings, however, remain modest and uneven.

There is some concern that the placebo effect may be doing more of the work in some cases than the pills, powders or gummies. Some research on cognition-enhancing drugs known as nootropics and over-the-counter brain supplements suggests that perceived improvements often track closely with expectation rather than measurable changes. The benefit, in other words, may come from belief, routine or increased self-monitoring rather than the ingredient list.

Even some promising research results have not panned out. In 1997, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that high doses of vitamin E – 2,000 units – delayed functional deterioration in moderately severe Alzheimer’s disease patients. The findings were compelling enough that many physicians began recommending this dose, but enthusiasm waned after later findings raised concerns about increased bleeding risk.

Mónika Fekete, an assistant professor of preventive medicine and public health at Semmelweis University in Budapest, led a review of nutritional supplements’ impact on cognitive function in the journal Nutrients. Fekete and her colleagues found that vitamins B, C, D and E each contribute uniquely to brain health, but studies about dietary supplements more generally are frequently limited by differences in methods, small sample sizes and a lack of clear goals.

“The strongest and most consistent evidence regarding brain health and prevention of chronic diseases does not support the widespread use of isolated dietary supplements,” she said.

Researchers say the most reliable ways to protect brain health remain decidedly unglamorous: exercise, sleep and social connection.

Here’s how Small, 74, thinks about supplements in his own life:

1. Curcumin A number of years ago, Small came across epidemiological studies noting lower rates of Alzheimer’s disease in parts of Asia where diets are rich in turmeric, the golden-yellow root long used in cooking. Around the same time, laboratory research began to suggest that curcumin, one of turmeric’s active compounds, had anti-inflammatory properties and might reduce tau and amyloid beta – proteins closely associated with neurodegeneration. Intrigued, Small helped conduct a small, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 40 adults and reported improvements in memory and attention in the group that took curcumin.

The study was never expanded, but he found the results suggestive enough to begin taking the supplement himself. He remains uncertain about its effects on the brain, he said, but is comfortable with the possibility that it may offer broader anti-inflammatory benefits.

A 2024 review of published studies on curcumin found a “statistically significant improvement in cognitive performance,” while cautioning about potential gastrointestinal side effects. There have been recent concerns about whether it could cause liver damage as well.

2. Coenzyme Q10 There have been a few studies that suggest Coenzyme Q10, a naturally occurring compound that helps cells produce energy and helps protect them from damage, could aid the brain. But Small mostly takes it because he takes a statin for cholesterol and his doctor told him there is some evidence CoQ10 lowers the risk for side effects such as muscle aches and fatigue.

3. Multivitamin One of the more convincing findings to date about supplements comes from the cognitive substudies of the Harvard-led COSMOS trial, which involved over 2,200 participants followed over roughly two to three years. A paper published in 2024 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that adults over 60 who took a daily multivitamin scored modestly better on tests of episodic memory than those given a placebo – a gap researchers say amounts to about two years of cognitive aging.

What he doesn’t take:

1. Vitamin D “Vitamin D is good for the body, definitely, and there are some suggestive evidence it may help with cognitive health,” he said. But Small said he gets plenty of it by being outdoors and does not believe in supplementing unless a person is deficient.

2. B12 Low vitamin B12 levels can lead to “fatigue, numbness, tingling and memory loss,” Small said. “But if your levels are normal, I think the evidence it’s going to help you much is pretty flimsy.”

3. Omega-3 When it comes to taking omega-3 in supplements, Small said, “When benefits are seen, they are small, inconsistent and often not clinically meaningful.” On the other hand, observational studies have consistently shown that people who eat fish regularly have a lower risk of cognitive decline and dementia. “Randomized trials haven’t confirmed a causal effect, but sushi, sashimi, branzino, salmon and other fish are some of my favorite foods, so I enjoy a fish dish twice a week,” he said.

4. Creatine A number of Small’s patients are taking creatine for their physical health, and some randomized controlled trials link it to better working memory and processing speed. Although he doesn’t take it himself, Small said it falls into the category of “if somebody feels very strongly, I won’t argue – as long as I don’t think there are side effects.” He said older adults, as well as athletes, may benefit from creatine supplementation, though some people may experience side effects.

5. Phosphatidylserine This is part of the brain cell membranes and is believed to support cognitive function, memory and nerve health. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition in 2010 of 78 older people in Japan who complained of memory issues found that phosphatidylserine derived from soybean given for six months resulted in improved memory function, especially delayed recall and the ability to remember information after a period of time has passed. But Small is not convinced enough to take it himself, and it can be found naturally in fish, soybeans and eggs.

6. Nicotinamide riboside A form of vitamin B3, this ingredient has been getting a fair amount of attention recently as a popular antiaging supplement. A 2025 clinical study of people with long covid published in eClinicalMedicine found high doses were associated with positive changes in cognition, fatigue and mood. But the research is still in the very early stages.

Ask your doctor. Bring the bottles and canisters of everything you are taking to your doctor to evaluate, because there’s often overlap between different brands and formulations. “You may be wasting money or, at worst, creating a situation of drug interactions you’re not aware of,” Small said.

Vet the companies. There are two main issues with supplements: whether they work or might cause harm, and whether they contain what’s advertised or include dangerous contaminants. Research whether a manufacturer is a reputable company and if there any lawsuits or complaints against it.

Be skeptical. Instead of taking the claims on a label for granted, assume the pills or powders don’t do anything until you’ve done your own research. “With social media and the Internet, supplement marketing is on steroids,” Small said. “Whoever has the loudest voice in the room seems to prevail.”

“Exercise is good for you” is about as groundbreaking as florals for spring. But the flip side of that somewhat obvious health advice is also true: Spending too much time sitting isn’t great for you.

We’ve all read the headlines claiming that “sitting is the new smoking” even if you exercise. It seems as if there’s a regular cadence of research coming out to suggest that anyone with a sedentary lifestyle or occupation is doomed.

So how bad is it, really, to sit all day? And how can you combat the effects – considering that you may not feel like you have much of an alternative if your job requires it of you most days?

We dug into the research and asked experts to explain what sitting all day does to your body and what you can do to counteract the effects.

The health risks of sitting too much
A lot of sedentary time really is bad for you. We’ve known this for more than a decade. “I started talking about this 10 years ago, and it’s only gotten worse,” said Keith Diaz, the Florence Irving Associate Professor of Behavioral Medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, who has researched the health effects of sitting too much.

Over the years, various studies have linked too much sitting with shorter lifespans, including higher rates of death from heart disease and from any cause. How much sitting is “too much” can vary by study, but generally it looks like more than eight to 10 hours per day.

Sitting for 10 hours a day once in a while isn’t the end of the world. Rather, researchers look at sedentary behavior over the course of years. When sitting all day becomes a regular habit, it’s also tied to a higher risk of cancer, Type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, depression and cognitive impairment.

A February 2024 study in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) of nearly 6,000 older women found that those who spent more than 11 hours sitting per day had a 57 percent higher risk of death from any cause during the 10-year study period and a 78 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease compared with women who sat for fewer than nine hours per day. Women who sat the most during the day and had the longest bouts of uninterrupted sitting had the highest chances of dying.

This study and others point to two main hypotheses underlying this association between sitting and negative health outcomes.

The first is that “when we sit, our muscles are not working and are not taking up glucose, and that can negatively affect our metabolism,” said Steve Nguyen, assistant professor in residence at the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California at San Diego and lead author of the JAHA study.

“What we’re learning is that our muscles are really important for regulating blood sugar and triglycerides, or fats in our blood,” Diaz added. “For muscles to do that well, they need regular contraction,” which they don’t get when you’re sedentary.

The second has to do with blood vessels. When we sit, the bend in our legs is like a kink in a hose that can affect blood flow, Diaz said. Over time, that can contribute to blood vessels becoming stiffer, a risk factor for heart disease and stroke, Nguyen said.

People who sit a lot are also more likely to report having back and neck pain. While more research is needed, this could be due to how sedentary time affects posture. “Sitting results in muscle inactivation, and that could lead to lower muscle strength,” Nyugen said. Lower muscle strength makes us more likely to slouch, which can, over time, contribute to musculoskeletal imbalances and pain.

The phrase “sitting is the new smoking” is attributed to a Mayo Clinic professor of medicine and the inventor of the treadmill desk. But that’s not actually true.

When one meta-analysis tried to quantify just how bad sitting is compared with smoking, smoking was still worse. Per 100,000 people, 190 might die each year because of the health effects of sitting, while 2,000 would die because of heavy smoking.

How to combat the effects of sitting
So what can you do if you sit too much? The answer is simple in theory and harder in practice for the vast majority of U.S. adults: If you have healthy joints and muscles and no reason you can’t move more, then just don’t sit all day.

Here are some practical tips for incorporating a bit more movement into your life.

If your job is sedentary, make sure your weekend isn’t
Some sitting is probably unavoidable, especially if your work requires it. So look for opportunities to move more when you’re not at your job. That means no matter how tempting it is to spend a lot of your weekend scrolling on social media, try not to spend all of your downtime being sedentary, too.

Start exercising regularly if you don’t already
Exercise alone doesn’t seem to completely negate the harmful effects of sitting, but it can help. “Even if you exercise, how much sitting you do can still influence your disease risk,” Diaz said. “But if you didn’t exercise, you’d be far worse off.”

And a little bit goes a long way. Swapping 30 minutes of sitting for 30 minutes of light activity was associated with a 17 percent lower risk of death in a 2019 study of adults over age 45 that Diaz co-authored. And if those 30 minutes of activity were moderate to vigorous, risk of death decreased by 35 percent.

Change your position frequently
The fix for sitting all day isn’t necessarily standing all day. Standing too long can lead to back pain and still cause blood to pool in your legs, but it can be a helpful way to interrupt longer periods of sitting, Diaz said.

“The goal here is: Don’t sit all day, don’t stand all day, don’t move all day,” Diaz said. “It’s really just about doing everything in moderation and avoiding doing one thing for long periods of time.”

If it’s available and appropriate for you, consider an adjustable standing desk that allows you to sit or stand while you work. These devices reduce sedentary time and have also been linked to improvements in back and neck pain, productivity and feelings of engagement at work, according to a 2021 study. Treadmill and pedaling desks are other options, Nguyen added.

Schedule regular movement breaks
You should also break for movement regularly. In a small 2023 study Diaz co-authored, taking a five-minute activity break every 30 minutes that you’re sitting resulted in improvements in blood pressure and blood sugar management compared with people who didn’t get up and move at all.

Even taking less-frequent breaks is still a good idea. “What we were reassured with is that if you move every hour for five minutes, it didn’t help as much with blood sugar, but it helped with blood pressure, and it helped with people’s mood and their feelings of fatigue, which are two of the hidden costs of our sedentary lives,” Diaz said.

So whenever you can, take a quick walk around your office, do simple exercises like calf raises or squats, climb some stairs or even just march in place until you have to sit again.

To make this easier to actually do, think about where you can add in movement throughout your day tied to habits you already have, Diaz said – a popular concept known as habit-stacking. This might look like taking a short walk after every time you finish a work call, instead of diving into another project or checking your email, he said. You can also try scheduling movement in your calendar, setting an alarm on your phone to remind you to move more, or wearing a fitness tracker that regularly nudges you.

Think about ways in which you can permanently change sedentary habits, too. For example, maybe you make your weekly check-in meeting with your direct report a walking meeting or go for a stroll during your monthly phone call with your long-distance friend. These small changes can add up to decreased total sitting time.

“While it’s very important to move around throughout the day, movement and exercise are not a free pass,” Nguyen said. “We should still work on reducing our sitting where we reasonably can.”

(c) The Washington Post · Sarah Klein 

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the U.S. DOGE Service did not have the authority to cancel National Endowment for the Humanities grants, which made up more than $100 million in congressionally appropriated funds.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon said DOGE selected grants for termination last year in ways that violated the First Amendment and the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment, calling the case “a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.”

Citing depositions of two members of DOGE who had directed the grant cuts, McMahon wrote that the cost-cutting group had used ChatGPT to decide which grants would promote diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, but did not tell the AI chatbot how it defined the term.

The decision comes after more than a year of litigation over the grant cuts, which revealed new information about DOGE’s inner workings and influence over key decisions.

Humanities organizations – made up of the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association of America – argued the grant cuts were arbitrary and capricious because the funding was terminated en masse without considering the specifics of each grant. In depositions, the DOGE members, Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh, testified they were focused on eliminating grants they viewed as promoting DEI and other grants they believed contributed to debt. (State humanities councils, which receive funding from the NEH, have also sued over the cuts.)

In depositions and government documents made available through discovery, it was revealed Fox and Cavanaugh had directed the NEH’s acting chairman Michael McDonald in the grant cutting. McDonald’s signature appeared on the letter that canceled grants, but it was placed there by DOGE.

The grants DOGE chose to cancel included funding to provide educational programming about the Holocaust at Seton Hall University, a virtual reality demonstration of Indigenous culture at the Mesa Verde National Park and Wupatki National Monument and a book about HIV in prisons.

McMahon said Congress had conferred no authority on DOGE to cut funding it appropriated, and it was President Donald Trump’s “duty to execute the laws Congress has enacted.”

“DOGE had no statutory authority to terminate NEH grants,” McMahon wrote. “And on the undisputed evidence, DOGE – not the NEH Chairperson or anyone else at NEH – effectuated the terminations at issue here.”

Plaintiffs called the decision a “complete victory.”

“We are gratified that justice was done, grateful to our amazing legal team at Fairmark Partners, and we will be watching closely to make sure every one of these grants is restored,” said Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger in a statement.

The White House and NEH did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the decision.

The judge ordered the government to rescind its termination letters to grantees but said the order does not require the government to immediately pay grant funds.

McMahon also highlighted Fox and Cavanaugh’s lack of understanding about the grants and experience in government. The two had come from tech backgrounds and were recruited through Elon Musk’s allies to join DOGE at the beginning of the administration.

They relied heavily on AI to sort the grants into spreadsheets, asking ChatGPT: “Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with ‘Yes.’ or ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.”

While the government suggested that it was ChatGPT’s determinations of what DEI was and not the government’s, McMahon did not accept that reasoning.

“That argument brings to mind, for someone of my generation, the great comedian Flip Wilson, whose character ‘Geraldine Jones’ would excuse her behavior by saying, ‘The devil made me do it,’” McMahon wrote. “That excuse did not work for Geraldine Jones, and it does not work for the Government.”

(c) 2026, The Washington Post · Meryl Kornfield