The notion of people lobbing abuse and harm onto a blind man and his guide dog sounds too cruel to be real, but as this video below shows, it’s very real and disturbingly common. 37-year-old Amit Patel has been legally blind due to Keratoconus since 2102. The former (due to his condition) doctor and his wife live in London, where he negotiates the city with the assistance of a guide dog named Kika.

To show (and prove to) the world that he faces abuse the likes of which most decent people wouldn’t dream of, he strapped a GoPro camera onto Kika as he went about his daily business in London. Here’s the footage from one video:


[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

As you might imagine, it’s not usually outward animus or antagonism directed at Patel and Kika, but the manifestation of impatience or the lack of realization that the insults and shoving are being levied against a blind man and his guide dog. Of course, that’s of little consolation to a man who can’t cross an intersection or ride an escalator without people pushing, cursing, or stepping over his dog.

Adding insult to injury, after these run-ins, the offending parties will go so far as to demand apologies from Patel, as he conveys here:

“Kika always sits to my left hand side so we often block the escalator and people will hit her with bags and umbrellas to get her to move out of the way. The worst part is the tutting and negative comments behind me. People are so rude and arrogant and assume they can do whatever they want. One lady even said I should apologise to the people behind her for holding them up. I asked her if I should apologise for being blind and she said ‘yes’.”

He said that while he has learned to whether the hardships, Kika carries the scars a little longer, often refusing to ride an escalator or the tube for several days after an incident. That said, Kika continues to perform her job, once even saving Amit’s life by putting herself between her owner and a car speeding through an intersection. He recalls, “She saw the car and she got in front of me and took the hit – the car grazed her nose. It was three days before she could work again.”

It’s unlikely that this video will affect much change for Amit on the streets of London, but it may serve to inform the few who see it that being a blind person managing a service animal in a crowded city is hard enough without taking on a barrage of confrontations, passive and otherwise, from those around them.

  • Menstrual pads and tampons can contain toxic substances – here’s what to know about this emerging health issue
    Studies have found small amounts of toxic heavy metals and other potentially harmful substances in some menstrual pads and tampons.Photo credit: zoranm/E+ via Getty Images

    About half of the global population menstruates at some point in their lives. Disposable products, such as tampons and pads, are some of the most popular products used around the globe to manage menstrual flow.

    Unfortunately, studies have shown that many personal care products, including shampoo, lotion, nail polish and menstrual products, contain hazardous chemicals. Items used in or near the vagina are of particular concern because they are in contact with vaginal mucous membranes – the moist tissue lining the inside of the vagina that secretes mucus. These tissues can absorb some chemicals very efficiently.

    People use menstrual products 24 hours a day for multiple days monthly, over the course of many years. Tampons, which are used internally, are surrounded by the permeable vaginal mucous membrane for up to eight hours at a time.

    I am an environmental epidemiologist, and I study chemical exposure, its sources and its health effects. As a person who menstruates, I also must make my own decisions around menstrual products and manage the challenge of finding accurate information about women’s health risks, which receive less research attention and funding than men’s health.

    In 2024, I co-authored the first paper that detected metals in tampons, including toxic metals like lead and arsenic. My colleagues and I also wrote a review paper that surveyed the scientific literature and found about two dozen studies measuring chemicals in menstrual products.

    The various chemicals that these studies detected were typically at concentrations low enough to make their health impact unclear. However, they included chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system, which makes and controls hormones that are essential for bodies to function.

    How contaminants get into menstrual products

    The first modern tampon in the U.S. was patented in 1931. Nearly a century later, tampons still are made primarily from cotton, rayon or a blend of the two.

    Chemicals may get into tampons and other menstrual products in a number of ways. Some chemicals, like heavy metals, are present in soil, either naturally or due to pollution, and may be absorbed by cotton plants.

    Other chemicals, such as zinc, may be intentionally added to menstrual products to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria. Still others, such as phthalates – synthetic chemicals used to manufacture plastics – may leach into menstrual products from plastic packaging or be added as part of a fragrance.

    Research suggests that these chemicals are present in a large proportion of menstrual products – we found lead present in all 30 tampons we tested. What we don’t yet know is if these chemicals can get into people’s bodies in a high enough concentration to cause health effects in either the reproductive system or elsewhere in the body.

    Limited federal regulations

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates tampons, menstrual cups and scented menstrual pads as Class II medical devices, which carry moderate to medium risk. Unscented menstrual pads are Class I medical devices, which are considered low-risk. These categories are based on the risk the device may present to a consumer who uses it in the intended way.

    FDA guidance for Class II devices offers only a few general guidelines with respect to chemicals. For menstrual tampons and pads, it recommends – but does not require – that products should not contain two specific dioxin products or “any pesticide and herbicide residues.” Dioxins are a chemical by-product of the bleaching process to whiten cotton, and they are associated with cancer and endocrine disruption. Using non-chlorine bleaching methods can reduce dioxin formation.

    The most stringent regulation of tampons in the U.S. occurred after an illness called toxic shock syndrome became a public concern in the 1970s and 1980s. Menstrual toxic shock syndrome occurs when the bacteria Staphlococcus aureus grows in the vagina on inserted menstrual products and releases a toxin called TSST-1. This substance can be absorbed through the vaginal mucosa and cause a variety of symptoms, including fever, high blood pressure, shock and even death.

    During this epidemic, in which at least 52 cases were recorded and seven people died over a period of eight months, tampons were associated with the syndrome – especially a highly absorbent tampon called Rely, which was pulled from the market.

    In response, the FDA created a task force that recommended standardizing the tampon absorbencies and advised consumers to use the lowest absorbency for their flow. This is why tampons in the U.S. now come in a range of absorbencies, from light through regular to super and ultra, so that users can choose the level they need while minimizing risk of toxic shock.

    Living in a ‘soup of chemicals’

    Just because a chemical is present in a menstrual product doesn’t mean it can get into the body. However, chemicals like lead and arsenic are known threats to human health. So it’s important to study whether harmful chemicals present in menstrual products could contribute to health problems.

    Humans in the modern world live in what expert toxicologist Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, calls a “soup of chemicals.” Simply being present on Earth means being exposed to many chemicals, at different concentrations, all at once. This makes it difficult to unravel the relationship between a single chemical exposure and health.

    Nonetheless, science has shown that chemical exposure from at least one menstrual product – vaginal douches – does affect health. Vaginal douching is the process of washing or cleaning the inside of the vagina with water or other fluids.

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends avoiding this process, which can harm healthy bacteria in the vagina, increasing the risk of vaginal infections and other diseases.

    In addition, a 2015 study found that women who use vaginal douches have higher concentrations of a chemical called monoethyl phthalate in their urine. Exposure to this substance is associated with reproductive health problems, such as reduced fertility and increased pregnancy risk.

    Can these chemicals be absorbed?

    Scientists are working now to determine what concentrations of metals and other chemicals can leach out of tampons and other menstrual products. One 2025 study estimated that volatile organic compounds, a group of chemicals that vaporize quickly, can be absorbed through the vaginal mucosa. Volatile organic compounds may be added to menstrual products as part of fragrances, adhesives or other product components.

    My team and I are now shifting our focus to the relationship between menstrual product use, various chemicals, and menstrual pain and bleeding severity. We want to see whether some chemicals will be elevated in menstrual blood, whether these chemical levels are higher in people who use tampons, and whether the chemicals are associated with greater menstrual pain and bleeding.

    States are starting to act on this issue. For example, in 2024, Vermont became the first U.S. state to ban multiple chemicals from disposable menstrual products. California bans PFAS, a widely used group of highly persistent chemicalsfrom menstrual products. New York adopted a law in December 2025 barring multiple toxic chemicals from menstrual products.

    California also enacted a law in October 2025 that requires manufacturers of disposable tampons and pads to measure concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc in their products, and to share those measurements with the state, which can publish them. More information like this will help support informed choices for millions of consumers who rely on menstrual products every month.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

    conversationpixel

  • I’m a philosopher who tries to see the best in others – but I know there are limits
    Interpreting someone’s thoughts or actions can mean balancing their agency against the good.Photo credit: Kateryna Kovarzh/iStock via Getty Images
    ,

    I’m a philosopher who tries to see the best in others – but I know there are limits

    ​There’s only so much you can see when you look at things from the other side.

    Understanding one another can be hard. There is a big difference between someone snapping at you out of contempt, and calling you out for a mistake because they believe in you and know you can do better. One of these cases calls for anger, but the other for humility or even embarrassment. Or maybe they are only snapping because they’re “hangry” – they might just need a Snickers bar.

    And that’s just with people we know. What about strangers, people across the political divide, or even those with very different backgrounds and cultures than your own?

    My field, philosophy, offers a tried-and-true answer to what we need to do in order to understand people and texts from very different backgrounds and cultural assumptions than our own. We need to be charitable.

    Charity in this sense isn’t a matter of giving money to those who need it more. Instead, it’s seeing others in a favorable light – of seeing the best in them. In my work, I think of this as seeing other people as protagonists: characters who “do their best” with the predicament in which they find themselves. Interpreting someone charitably doesn’t require agreeing with them. But it does require doing our best to find merit in their point of view.

    Of course, people and ideas don’t have unlimited merit. We can err by failing to see the merit of someone’s point of view – or we can err by finding merit that isn’t really there.

    But the idea of charity is that it’s worse to make the first kind of error because it prevents us from getting along and learning from one another. By seeing the best in someone else and in their ideas, we can learn productively from engaging with them. Protagonists are people we can learn from and cooperate with.

    Taking them seriously

    It doesn’t take a genius to observe that we are all better at seeing the best in the people we agree with – and worse with those across the political divide. Political discussions on social media are often dominated by competing attributions of more and more insidious motives to people on the other side. We see them not as protagonists, but as antagonists.

    By seeing the worst in someone else’s ideas, we let ourselves off easy. We dismiss them when instead we need to be taking them seriously.

    So why, if charity requires seeing the best in others, are we so often tempted to see the worst in them?

    A better understanding of charity provides the answer. Seeing the best and the worst in others are not opposite ways of interpreting someone, but simply two sides of the same coin. Here’s why:

    Charity, Philosophy, Ethics, Conflict, Virtues, Understanding, Interpretation, Disagreements, Motives, Character virtue
    Part of charity is sifting out the signal from the noise.Photo credit: Maskot/Getty Images

    Interpretation trade-offs

    Interpreting someone isn’t all about figuring out their motives. Sometimes it’s about sorting out what is signal and what is noise. If I snap at you, you could spend a lot of time fixating over whether to be angry or embarrassed. But sometimes the right move is just to pass me a Snickers bar and move on. Our moods and actions are influenced by hunger, hormones, alcohol and lack of sleep, just to name a few. Overinterpreting a snap after I missed breakfast treats as signal what is really just noise.

    Overlooking a thing or two when I am hangry can be the best way to see the best in me. When you interpret my snap as merely the result of missing a meal, you don’t really see it as coming from me, the protagonist; but as the result of my predicament. You will judge me, not by whether I am hangry, but by how I overcome that. Your interpretation sees me in a more positive light, by taking away some of my agency.

    By “agency,” I mean the extent to which someone gets credit for what they do. You have greater agency over something that you do on purpose, and less if was a foreseen but accepted side effect of your plan. You have less agency if it was an accident, but more if the accident was negligent; less agency if you just snapped because you’re hangry, but more if you know you get hangry and chose to skip lunch anyway.

    A perfect agent wouldn’t be affected by hormones and hunger. They would simply make rational choices that advance their goals. But humans aren’t like that. We are imperfectly embodied agents, at best. So interpreting one another well sometimes requires seeing the good in one another, at the cost of agency. In other words, it has to balance agency against the good, as I have argued in my recent work.

    But you can’t find the best in someone by just ignoring more and more until all the bad things are trimmed away and only something good is left. Your interpretation has to fit with the facts of what they do and say.

    And sometimes the trade-offs between agency and the good go the other way – we interpret each other in ways that attribute more agency but less good. If passing me a Snickers bar seems to calm me down, you might try it again the next time I snap. But one day you realize that you have started carrying extra Snickers bars everywhere you go in case you run into me, and a different interpretation presents itself: Maybe instead of being a decent but mood-challenged friend, I have just been using you for your candy bars.

    Charity, Philosophy, Ethics, Conflict, Virtues, Understanding, Interpretation, Disagreements, Motives, Character virtue
    Truly angry, just hangry, or taking advantage of your chocolate supply?Photo credit: Deagreez/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    This creates tipping points for charitable interpretation. When we cross the tipping point, you switch from seeing someone as an imperfectly embodied protagonist to seeing them as an antagonist.

    Charity without a cost

    All of this is a way of arguing that it is sometimes right to see the worst in others. Sometimes other people really are the worst, and understanding them requires understanding their agency, not what is good about them. Protagonists and antagonists are just two sides of the same coin: The very same interpretive process can lead us in either direction.

    Unfortunately, this means there is no simple test for when you are doing well enough at seeing the best in others. In particular, there is no test that we can agree about across our political differences. Interpreting someone charitably requires looking hard enough for good in them, but part of what we disagree with one another about is precisely what is good. So we are bound to disagree with one another about who is being sufficiently charitable.

    But as a personal aspiration, a little more charity can go a long way. We can be generous not just with money, but in how we interpret others. But unlike giving money away, we don’t lose anything when we try harder to see the best in someone else.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • GLP‑1 drugs may fight addiction across every major substance, according to a study of 600,000 people
    With GLP-1 drugs becoming more accessible and affordable, they could also be within reach for substance use treatment.Photo credit: Michael Siluk/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
    ,

    GLP‑1 drugs may fight addiction across every major substance, according to a study of 600,000 people

    A massive study of veterans suggests these medications may quiet cravings far beyond food.

    A patient of mine, a veteran who had tried to quit smoking for over a decade, told me that after he started a GLP-1 drug for his diabetes, he lost interest in cigarettes. He didn’t use a patch. He didn’t set a quit date. He simply lost interest. It happened without effort.

    Another patient on one of these drugs for weight loss told me that alcohol had lost its pull – after years of failed attempts to quit.

    People struggling with many addictions, ranging from opioids to gambling, are reporting similar experiences in clinics, on social media and around dinner tables. None of them started these drugs to quit. This pattern of people losing their cravings across a broad range of addictive substances has no precedent in medicine.

    But my patients were giving me an important clue. People taking GLP-1 drugs often talk about “food noise” vanishing: the constant mental chatter about food that dominated their days simply goes quiet. But my patients were reporting that it wasn’t just food: They were noticing that the preoccupation with smoking, drinking and using drugs that drives people back despite their best intentions to stop was going quiet too.

    As a physician whose patients are often on GLP-1 drugs, and as a scientist who works on answering pressing public health questions – from long COVID to medication safety – I saw a problem hiding in plain sight: Many addictions have no approved treatment. The few medications that exist are massively underutilized, and none works across all substances. The idea that a drug already taken by millions might do what no addiction treatment has done before was too important to ignore.

    My team and I set out to test whether GLP-1 drugs – medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro and Zepbound), originally developed for diabetes and then approved for obesity – could do what no existing addiction treatment does: curb craving itself.

    Our evidence strongly suggests they can.

    Biological basis of cravings

    The hormone that these drugs mimic – GLP-1 – is not only produced in the gut. It is also active in the brain, where the receptors it binds to cluster in regions governing reward, motivation and stress – the same circuitry that gets hijacked by addiction. At therapeutic doses, GLP-1 drugs cross the blood-brain barrier and dampen dopamine signaling in the brain’s core reward center, making addictive substances less rewarding.

    GLP-1 drugs seem to inhibit cravings for several different substances in multiple animal models. For instance, rodents given GLP-1 drugs drink less alcoholself-administer less cocaine and show less interest in nicotine. When researchers gave semaglutide to green vervet monkeys – primates that voluntarily drink alcohol much like humans do – the animals drank less without showing signs of nausea or changes in water intake. This suggests the drug lowered the reward value of alcohol rather than making the animals feel sick.

    From animals to people

    To find out whether these drugs have a similar effect on people, we turned to the electronic health records of more than 600,000 patients with Type 2 diabetes at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – one of the largest health care databases in the world.

    We designed a study that applied the rigor of randomized controlled trials – the gold standard in medicine – to real-world data. We compared people who started GLP-1 drugs to people who did not, adjusting for differences in health history, demographics and other factors, and followed both groups for three years.

    My team and I asked two questions: For people already struggling with addiction, did the drugs reduce overdoses, drug-related hospitalizations and deaths? And for people with no prior substance use disorder, did GLP-1 drugs reduce their risk of developing one across all major addictive substances: alcohol, opioids, cocaine, cannabis and nicotine?

    What we found was striking. In the group already struggling with addiction, there were 50% fewer deaths due to substance use among those taking GLP-1 drugs compared with those who were not. We also found 39% fewer overdoses, 26% fewer drug-related hospitalizations and 25% fewer suicide attempts. Over three years, this translated to roughly 12 fewer serious events in total per 1,000 people using GLP-1 drugs – including two fewer deaths.

    Reductions of this magnitude are rare in addiction medicine – and what’s remarkable is that the finding came from drugs initially designed for diabetes, later repurposed for obesity and never intended to treat addiction.

    The drugs also appeared to prevent addiction from developing in the first place. Among people with no prior substance use disorder, those taking GLP-1 drugs had an 18% lower risk of developing alcohol use disorder, a 25% lower risk of opioid use disorder and an approximately 20% lower risk of cocaine and nicotine dependence. Over three years, this translated to roughly six to seven fewer new diagnoses per 1,000 GLP-1 users.

    With tens of millions of people already using GLP-1 drugs, the reductions in deaths, overdoses, hospitalizations and new diagnoses could translate into thousands of prevented serious events each year.

    Converging evidence

    Our findings align with a growing body of evidence.

    A Swedish nationwide study of 227,000 people with alcohol use disorder found that those taking GLP-1 drugs had 36% lower risk of alcohol-related hospitalizations. This is more than double the 14% reduction that the same study found with naltrexone, which was the best-performing medication approved for treatment of alcohol use disorder in that analysis. Other observational studies have linked GLP-1 drugs to lower rates of new and recurring alcohol use disorderreduced diagnoses and relapse in cannabis use disorderfewer health care visits for nicotine dependence and lower risk of opioid overdose.

    Meanwhile, randomized controlled trials that directly test whether these drugs help people with addiction also show promise. In one trial, semaglutide reduced both craving and alcohol consumption in people with alcohol use disorder. In another, dulaglutide reduced drinking. More than a dozen additional trials are already underway or actively enrolling, and several more are planned.

    The future of addiction treatment

    GLP-1 drugs are the first type of medication to show potential benefit across multiple substance types simultaneously. And unlike existing addiction medications, which are prescribed by specialists and remain vastly underused, GLP-1 drugs are already prescribed at enormous scale by primary care doctors. The delivery system to reach millions of patients already exists.

    The consistency of GLP-1 effectiveness across alcohol, opioids, cocaine, nicotine and cannabis suggests these drugs may act on a shared vulnerability underlying addiction – not on any single substance pathway. If confirmed, that would represent a fundamental shift in how society understands addiction and how doctors treat it.

    Some unanswered questions remain, though, about how these drugs would affect addiction. Many people who take GLP-1 drugs to treat obesity or diabetes discontinue them; afterward, their appetite typically returns and they regain the weight they lost. Whether the same rebound would occur with addiction, and what it would mean for someone in recovery to face the roar of craving again, is unknown. Nor is it clear whether the benefits persist over years of continuous use, or whether the brain adapts in ways that dampen those effects.

    Also, because GLP-1 drugs engage the brain’s reward circuitry – the same system that governs not just craving but everyday motivation – prolonged use could, in theory, dampen motivational drive in some people. Whether that might affect real-world outcomes, such as initiative, competitive drive or performance at work, remains an open question.

    What comes next

    GLP-1 drugs have not been approved for addiction, and there is not yet enough evidence to prescribe them solely for that purpose. But for millions of people already weighing whether to start a GLP-1 drug for diabetes, obesity or another approved indication, it is one more factor worth considering.

    A patient living with diabetes who is also trying to quit smoking might reasonably choose a GLP-1 drug over another glucose-lowering medication, not because it is approved for smoking cessation, but because it may help them quit, a benefit that other diabetes drugs do not offer. Similarly, for people living with obesity who also struggle with alcohol, the potential for benefit beyond weight loss could be one more reason to consider a GLP-1 drug.

    If additional trials confirm that they effectively curb cravings across addictive substances, these drugs could begin to close one of the most consequential treatment gaps in medicine. And the most promising lead in addiction in decades will have come not from a deliberate search but from patients reporting a benefit no one anticipated. Like my patient who quit smoking after a lifetime of trying, it happened without effort.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

GLP‑1 drugs may fight addiction across every major substance, according to a study of 600,000 people

Well-being

Expert shares ancient monk’s mindset for keeping your composure when life ‘bumps’ you

Health

The Tsimané people of Bolivia have almost no dementia. Scientists say modern life is our problem.

Health

Doctors couldn’t explain the pain in her daughter’s foot. Then a nurse looked closer and spotted something that led to a devastating diagnosis.