Politics
Politics Home | Human-focused research is transforming medicine and challenging animal testing
Advances in biomedical technology are reshaping how human disease is studied and treated, providing credible alternatives to animal testing
Tools such as 3D-bioprinted tissues, organ-on-a-chip systems, and advanced human in vitro models are opening the way to more accurate, human-relevant research approaches – reducing reliance on animals while offering faster, more effective alternatives.
These developments formed the backdrop to a two-day conference in London, hosted by the Royal Society on behalf of the Alliance for Human Relevant Science, which brought together researchers, clinicians, industry leaders, and legislators. Across the programme, speakers examined both the scientific limitations of animal testing and the emerging alternatives that could strengthen the UK life sciences sector while raising ethical standards.
The first day focused on the scientific foundations of human-relevant research, exploring advances in disease modelling and drug development and reflecting on the constraints of existing methods. The second day shifted towards application and policy, considering regulatory reform, the role of real-world evidence, and the practical challenges of transitioning away from animal models.
It was in this context that the conference turned to how scientific, regulatory and political developments might be aligned to accelerate change.
The scientific limits of animal testing
Opening the discussion, Professor Merel Ritskes Hoitinga, professor in evidence-based transition to animal-free innovations at Utrecht University and a former veterinarian, set out why she has come to reject animal testing altogether. Early in her career, she believed that animal research was necessary, operating within the ‘3Rs framework’ of replacement, reduction and refinement. But over time, she said, the “low quality” of much animal research, combined with the “impossibility to predict whether an animal study will work or not”, led her to conclude that animal testing was fundamentally unreliable.
She pointed to the replacement of the rabbit pyrogen test (RPT) with the monocyte activation test (MAT) in the European Union as evidence that animal-free methods can deliver better science. The MAT, she told attendees, is “even better” at detecting pyrogens than the animal-based test it replaced – improving safety outcomes while eliminating animal experimentation.
But the case also illustrated a deeper structural problem. Although the MAT was validated decades ago, it took around 40 years to appear in the European Pharmacopoeia, the official standards reference for the manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals across Europe. “Providing scientific evidence,” Ritskes-Hoitinga argued, is “not sufficient to make real changes fast.” Without clear leadership from the top and targeted funding, she said, promising alternatives can languish for decades despite being scientifically superior.
To deliver real change in advancing human-relevant science, Ritskes-Hoitinga argued that several factors must come together, including education, legislation and strong governance. She pointed to the need for clear structures – such as a steering committee – to maintain momentum, and stressed that wider societal involvement is also essential.
When clear targets and implementation strategies are in place, change can be delivered fairly quickly. Ritskes-Hoitinga pointed to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, which has set out a roadmap to make non-animal testing methods the norm for new medications within three to five years.
How non-animal methods deliver better outcomes
To hear more about the FDA roadmap, attendees heard from the Commissioner himself, Dr Marty Makary, who joined the conference via video link. He described the US as undergoing a “paradigm shift” in animal testing, with research and regulation being modernised through technologies such as organ-on-chip systems, artificial intelligence, and computational modelling.
Dr Makary framed this shift in the context of an increasingly competitive global research landscape, noting that much research and development is moving to China. He said the US needs to “compete better by offering the best experience possible for inventors and scientists,” and that a key part of improving competitiveness is to “challenge decades-old assumptions on how we do things,” including on animal testing.
Highlighting the limitations of current methods, Dr Makary highlighted that in 90 per cent of cases where a drug passes animal tests, it is ultimately ineffective in humans. By failing to challenge the dogma that animal testing is effective, Makary said, “we may be missing out on some cures.”
He noted that reducing animal testing also offers clear economic and regulatory advantages: it can shorten review timelines, lower research and development costs, and ultimately speed up patient access to potentially life-saving treatments. “It typically takes six to nine months to do animal testing if all goes well,” he explained. “It’s expensive, and lowering R&D costs also translates into lower prices and allows potentially meaningful cures to reach people faster.” According to Dr Makary, these newer methodologies have received broad support, and the FDA now has a dedicated team focused on advancing this work.
Throughout his contribution, Dr Makary urged attendees to “question everything,” invoking the Royal Society’s motto, nullius in verba. By challenging the assumption that animal testing is necessary, the US is pioneering more ethical and efficient approaches to research.
The case for change in the UK
With examples drawn from both the EU and the US, Steve Race MP, Member of Parliament for Exeter, set out his vision for the UK following the publication of the government’s Strategy to Replace Animals in Science.
Race argued that parliamentary attitudes have shifted in recent years, with the debate on animal testing becoming more pragmatic and less framed solely around animal rights. Echoing points made by Dr Makary and Ritskes-Hoitinga, he suggested that growing recognition of the scientific advantages of non-animal testing methods has helped to move opinion among his colleagues.
The economic case for accelerating the transition to non-animal testing, Race added, is also gaining traction. He pointed to the UK’s position at the forefront of global science, underpinned by what he described as an “incredible life sciences sector.” As countries such as the United States move rapidly to develop and adopt non-animal methods, Race warned that the UK must not fall behind. Maintaining leadership in science and R&D, he argued, will require active support for the sector, including close coordination with UKRI and Innovate UK to ensure the right funding mechanisms are in place.
Beyond Parliament, Race stressed the importance of MPs raising awareness in their constituencies of the benefits of non-animal methods to consolidate public support. “When you talk to people about using animals in medical research,” he said, “they largely won’t welcome it, but they will think it is necessary to cure cancer, as a basic point.” Making the case that there are alternative approaches, he argued – “potentially some better and more effective ways by not using animals” – would ultimately help to broaden public backing for the phase-out of animal methods.
During the Q&A session, Cruelty Free International Public Affairs Officer Lillie Grant asked Race about timelines for delivering the Animal Welfare Strategy. While welcoming the strategy, she said that “one thing missing from it is timelines and markers,” and asked what more could be done to ensure that “timelines are implemented.” Race responded that MPs must continue to signal to ministers that the strategy commands interest from “a broad range of colleagues,” and make use of public platforms to ensure progress is maintained.
Asked about engagement with civil society, Race addressed criticism that the strategy did not sufficiently involve key stakeholders. He acknowledged that the government “can’t do any of this alone,” and said he would raise the issue with ministers if appropriate consultation mechanisms were not already in place.
The future of human-relevant science
Taken together, the discussions at the Royal Society conference underlined that the debate on animal testing has moved well beyond questions of ethics alone. Across science, regulation and politics, there was a shared sense that human-relevant methods are not only more humane but increasingly more effective, economically rational and globally competitive.
With international counterparts already setting clear roadmaps for change, the challenge for the UK is no longer whether to embrace these approaches, but how quickly it can translate scientific momentum into clear timelines, funding, even broader public support, and the buy-in of the wider scientific community.
Rachel Reeves was asked this morning whether she was still committed to Labour’s manifesto pledge to pay young workers the same national minimum wage as older workers. She refused to do so twice. 15th U-turn on the way…
In what has been an impressively dreary winter so far, the Met Office has issued yet more weather warnings for England, Northern Ireland and Wales across today (18 Feb) and tomorrow (19 Feb).
It shared that rain, ice and snow yellow weather warnings have been issued for South West England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with conditions set to continue into tomorrow.
Yellow weather warnings for England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Steven Keates, Met Office deputy chief forecaster, explained the outlook: “On Wednesday, weather fronts are expected to move in from the Atlantic into some western, southern and central areas of the UK.
“As they bump into the cold air already in place, we are likely to see some snow developing, although there is still some uncertainty around the details.
“Initially, we may see some snow over the highest parts of southern England, such as Dartmoor, but the main chance of snow will be across higher parts of the Midlands and mid and southeast Wales. Above 150 to 200 metres, 2-5 cm of snow may accumulate, with a few places – most likely above 300 metres –possibly seeing 10cm or more.”
What do yellow weather warnings mean?
These are issued by The Met Office National Severe Weather Warning Service (NSWWS) and they warn of both human and building risks of harm due to extreme weather conditions.
Yellow weather warnings indicate ‘low-level’ risks, such as problems with travel, which can impact people’s daily routines, but there is often no other risk to life or property.
Fortunately, this weather warning is short-lived and forecasters have not shared concerns for wellbeing.
Should you drive when there is a yellow weather warning?
According to Traffic Scotland: “If possible, you should avoid driving no matter the warning level.
“Driving in a yellow warning may not pose a likely risk, but there is likely to be increased congestion and disruption on the road. Driving in amber and red warnings pose a greater risk, therefore travel should be avoided unless absolutely essential.”
Madeleine Sumption looks at immigration policy and the surrounding debate and explains the inherent competing policy objectives and trade-offs.
At Ellis Island in the early 20th century, doctors inspected prospective immigrants for signs of contagious diseases before admitting them to the United States. In Singapore today, migrant domestic workers must show a negative pregnancy test every six months if they want to stay in the country. In many European countries, wealthy investors can secure residence permits with a sufficiently large cheque.
These are all examples of immigration policy. What is it all for? In my forthcoming book—to be published in March by Bristol University Press—I answer this question.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the purpose of immigration policy is to keep people out. Many people more people want to migrate to wealthy countries than will ever gain admission. Governments and their electorates use immigration policies to separate “us” from “them” – to decide who should join their societies and who should not.
This is difficult. To start with, many immigration policies don’t work even half as well as expected. For example, in the book I explain the curious case of an ‘investor visa’ that was supposed to attract venture capitalists and entrepreneurs and ended up admitting well-heeled Russian housewives who liked the London social scene.
But perhaps the bigger problem governments face is that they have to achieve several goals with the same set of policies. Economic impacts, social impacts, fairness, national security, foreign policy… The objectives compete. This presents politicians and the public with difficult trade-offs. Here are just a few examples.
- Economic and humanitarian goals often conflict
“How much migration does the economy need” is a question I am often asked. It has no answer. One reason is that different migration routes—for family, workers, or refugees—have different purposes and impacts. Who migrates is more important for many economic measures than how many.
Skilled work migration will generally benefit public finances, for example, while humanitarian migration will usually bring costs. As a result, a decline in migration could be positive for the Exchequer if it meant fewer refugees, but costly if it meant fewer highly paid workers.
It is not surprising that immigration routes introduced primarily for ethical, legal or humanitarian reasons—e.g. for partners of citizens or for refugees—are not particularly beneficial economically. That was not the point. It does mean that governments face a trade-off between economic and humanitarian goals.
- Immigration policy is a blunt tool for dealing with social and cultural impacts
Policy debates often focus on economic impacts, but research suggests that what people care about most is the social and cultural impacts.
The challenge for policymakers is that it is easier to select potential migrants on economic characteristics than on values and attitudes. Attempts to do the latter are usually blunt.
For example, Donald Trump opted for banning entire nationalities his administration perceived to be culturally threatening, often but not always from countries with Muslim majorities. This affected everyone, regardless of their actual beliefs or attitudes.
At the other end of the spectrum, many attempts to select for cultural ‘fit’ feel trivial. For example, the UK’s ‘Life in the UK’ test checks that people applying for permanent status know that the statement, “Britain encourages people to have extreme views and act upon them” is false.
The immigration system is not well equipped to judge people’s views.
- Different types of fairness conflict
People on different sides of the debate generally agree that fairness matters, but they disagree on what counts as fair.
Take the question of unauthorised migration, and particularly whether and when people without legal status should be deported.
Ethical arguments depend a lot on how the issue is framed. Humanitarian framing presents migrants as victims of an overly restrictive system. Integrity arguments present migrants as rule-breakers who should have complied with the law.
Public debates often present the ethical issue as black and white, relying exclusively on one of these two frames. In reality, elements of both may be true. Unauthorized migrants are vulnerable to exploitation and the process and consequences of being forcibly removed can be brutal. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine a functioning immigration system without any enforcement, and it is not surprising publics expect compliance with the rules.
The bottom line
The life of immigration policymakers is harder than many people expect. Immigration ministers are ruthlessly lobbied by their own colleagues in other departments with competing interests. They manage a sprawling bureaucracy that governs the lives of millions of people, and they get the blame when an individual case they had no idea existed goes wrong.
That’s not to say politicians are innocent victims. Many also over-promise, exaggerate the evidence, and deny the trade-offs.
They are not alone. People on all sides of the debate present the answers as obvious – if only governments had the ‘political will’ to follow their guidance. But the inevitable trade-offs immigration policy presents mean that the reality is messier and more complicated than it might initially seem.
By Madeleine Sumption, Director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford and author of forthcoming book Bristol University Press | What Is Immigration Policy For?
Hollywood actors Tilda Swinton, Javier Bardem and Brian Cox are among more than 80 leading film industry figures to sign an open letter, titled “We Are Dismayed”, condemning the silence of the Berlin Film Festival (Berlinale) on Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its censoring of artists who speak out.
The letter comes on the same day as Booker Prize winning author Arundhati Roy announced her withdrawal from the festival over the same issue amidst comments by German director Wim Wenders against artists bringing up Gaza.
Berliale maintain silence
Other notable signatories include actors Angeliki Papoulia, Saleh Bakri, Tatiana Maslany, Peter Mullan and Tobias Menzies, and directors Mike Leigh, Lukas Dhont, Nan Goldin, Miguel Gomes, Adam McKay and Avi Mograbi. They say that they “expect the institutions in our industry to refuse complicity” in Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinian people.
The 2026 festival is currently underway. Festival head Tricia Tuttle put out a statement in which she backed Wenders:
Artists should not be expected to comment on all broader debates about a festival’s previous or current practices over which they have no control.
The signatories of the open letter “fervently disagree” and insist that the “tide is changing across the international film world”. They also point out that the Berlinale has commented strongly about earlier “atrocities” in Iran and Ukraine and call for the festival to “fulfil its moral duty” to oppose Israel’s genocide and other crimes against the Palestinians. The full text reads:
Open Letter to the Berlinale — Feb. 17, 2026
We write as film workers, all of us past and current Berlinale participants, who expect the institutions in our industry to refuse complicity in the terrible violence that continues to be waged against Palestinians. We are dismayed at the Berlinale’s involvement in censoring artists who oppose Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the German state’s key role in enabling it. As the Palestine Film Institute has stated, the festival has been “policing filmmakers alongside a continued commitment to collaborate with Federal Police on their investigations”.
Last year, filmmakers who spoke out for Palestinian life and liberty from the Berlinale stage reported being aggressively reprimanded by senior festival programmers. One filmmaker was reported to have been investigated by police, and Berlinale leadership falsely implied that the filmmaker’s moving speech – rooted in international law and solidarity – was “discriminatory”. As another filmmaker told Film Workers for Palestine about last year’s festival: “there was a feeling of paranoia in the air, of not being protected and of being persecuted, which I had never felt before at a film festival”. We stand with our colleagues in rejecting this institutional repression and anti-Palestinian racism.
We fervently disagree with the statement made by Berlinale 2026 jury president Wim Wenders that filmmaking is “the opposite of politics”. You cannot separate one from the other. We are deeply concerned that the German state-funded Berlinale is helping put into practice what Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion recently condemned as Germany’s misuse of draconian legislation “to restrict advocacy for Palestinian rights, chilling public participation and shrinking discourse in academia and the arts”. This is also what Ai Weiwei recently described as Germany “doing what they did in the 1930s” (agreeing with his interviewer who suggested to him that “it’s the same fascist impulse, just a different target”).
All of this at a time when we are learning horrifying new details about the 2,842 Palestinians “evaporated” by Israeli forces using internationally prohibited, U.S.-made thermal and thermobaric weapons. Despite abundant evidence of Israel’s genocidal intent, systematic atrocity crimes and ethnic cleansing, Germany continues to supply Israel with weapons used to exterminate Palestinians in Gaza.
In September 2025, more than 5,000 film workers, including major Hollywood stars, refused to work with industry organisations “implicated in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people”.
Featured image via the Canary
lead image
Reeves’s key job changes branded ‘silent killer’ as UK joblessness soars
“Job taxes imposed by Rachel Reeves have been branded the “silent killer of British aspiration” after unemployment across the UK hit a near five-year high. Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride took aim at Ms Reeves following the release of official figures on Tuesday which showed the rate of joblessness rose to 5.2% – or over 1.8 million people – in the three months to December. The figure had stood at 4.1% – or over 1.4 million people – when Labour took office in 2024, promising economic growth. For those in work, wages are still rising faster than prices but the rate at which they are growing continued to slow. Sir Mel said: “In a year of economic incompetence, Starmer and Reeves have presided over a P45 Government that has seen 134,000 payrolled jobs vaporised. Unemployment has climbed to 5.2% – the highest it’s been since the pandemic, and the dream of a steady paycheque is slipping away for thousands. This decline is not an accident, it’s a choice.”” – Daily Express
- Gloom for UK workers as incomes flatline and jobs market falters – The Guardian
- Sterling rocked by Labour jobs crisis: Pound slips below $1.35 as youth unemployment soars – This Is Money
- Fears for a generation as youth unemployment hits 11-year high – The Times
- Women hardest hit by soaring unemployment with 51,000 more out of work in four months – The Standard
- ‘It’s soul-crushing’: young people battle to find any work in bleak jobs market – The Guardian
- Labour may drop minimum wage pledge over youth jobless fears – The Times
Comment:
- Rachel Reeves is killing jobs and crushing Britain’s future with her incompetence – Mel Stride, Daily Express
- Labour’s own goals on jobs – Financial Times
- Rachel Reeves tips UK into death spiral – today Angela Rayner delivers the killer blow – Harvey Jones, Daily Express
- Why does Labour hate the young? – Alistair Osborne, The Times
- Britain’s shocking unemployment surge can be traced to one thing. This is why I now fear we will find it impossible to escape this doom loop of job market catastrophe and soaring benefits – Alex Brummer, Daily Mail
- We could have managed the AI jobs apocalypse. It is too late now – Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph
> Today:
Reeves blocking defence cash boost
“Rachel Reeves is resisting pressure from military chiefs to spend billions more on defence, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor has rejected requests from the Ministry of Defence to increase its budget amid fears of a £28bn funding shortfall. Talks over the defence budget have now hit a roadblock, as Ms Reeves faces warnings from service chiefs that existing plans will not be enough to meet Britain’s spending commitments over the next four years. Sir Keir Starmer has set a target of spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by April 2027, with an “ambition” to increase this again to 3 per cent after the next election. It was reported this week that Downing Street wanted to speed up this increase to hit 3 per cent by 2029. However, sources later insisted this was misinterpreted. It is thought the Treasury was concerned about any suggestion of going faster.” – Daily Telegraph
- Rachel Reeves rejects calls to boost defence spending amid fears of £28bn shortfall – GBNews
Comment:
- The British Army’s secret weapon that nobody has ever heard of – Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, Daily Telegraph
- British troops were wiped out by Ukrainian drones in exercises. Defence spending must rise – Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, Daily Telegraph
Chagos Islanders back after 50 years of exile
“A rig skimmed across the surface of the Indian Ocean, a flag of blue and white stripes with a Union flag in the upper left corner fluttering behind it. For the men and women on board, it marked the end of 50 years in exile. The boat’s crew were a band of British Chagossians who have defied an exclusion zone to make a dramatic landing on the white, sandy beaches of their homeland. The “advance party” led by Misley Mandarin, the elected Chagossian first minister, has vowed to establish a permanent resettlement on Île du Coin, part of the coral atoll of Peros Banhos. “We, the people of the Chagos Islands, stand today on the soil of our homeland,” the party announced in a “Declaration of Return”, adding: “We are the advance party. Hundreds more are following. We have come home.” Captured on video wearing a Make Britain Great Again hat as the arrivals unloaded boxes of food and Starlink communications equipment, Mr Mandarin announced: “We are not visitors, we are belongers and we are here to stay forever.God save the King, God save the United States of America.”” – Daily Telegraph
- Starmer’s friend ‘paid from £8.3m Chagos Islands handover budget’ – The Times
- Starmer’s friend made millions from Chagos deal – Daily Telegraph
- Four Chagossians return to islands in attempt to stop British transfer to Mauritius – The Guardian
- Ex-MP leads beach landing on Chagos Islands blasting Starmer’s deal – ‘crazy!’ – Daily Express
Reform unveils spokespeople, including two Tory defectors
“Nigel Farage unveiled Reform’s first ‘shadow cabinet’ as he pitched his party as the opposition to Labour. Declaring Reform no longer a one-man band, the leader announced that Robert Jenrick would become his chancellor-in-waiting. He made Richard Tice his deputy as well as the spokesman for business, trade and energy and Zia Yusuf his home affairs representative. Mr Jenrick’s fellow Tory defector Suella Braverman was named education and skills spokesman and handed responsibility for the equalities brief. Writing for the Daily Mail, he said it was time to boot out Sir Keir Starmer and his ‘rag-tag collection of sixth-form common room socialists’. ‘For far too long, politics in this country has been defined by short-termism, timidity and a refusal to confront the big questions,’ he said… Barely a month after leaving the Conservatives, Mr Jenrick was handed responsibility for the party’s approach to the economy. The former shadow justice secretary thanked Mr Farage for allowing him to ‘oppose the wrecking ball that is Rachel Reeves’.” – Daily Mail
- Nigel Farage unveils ‘shadow cabinet’ with two Tory defectors on Reform UK’s frontbench – The Standard
- Reform will repeal the Equality Act if elected, says Braverman – Daily Telegraph
- Jenrick vows Reform will ‘restore stability’ in the economy in first speech to the city – Daily Mail
- PM takes swipe at Reform and antivaxers after measles outbreak – The Times
Comment:
- Farage wants Reform to be party of future – but can its new top team distance itself from a Tory past? – Alexandra Rogers, Sky News
- Farage’s new shadow quartet is both brilliant and bizarre – Sherelle Jacobs, Daily Telegraph
> Today:
News in brief:
- Farage is preparing for power: Reform is on a mission to professionalise – Aaron Bastani, UnHerd
- On the highs and Lowes of the Restore Britain launch – Adam James Pollock, The Critic
- How many right-wing parties do we really need? – Gareth Roberts, The Spectator
- Labour are waging war on British jobs – Andrew Griffith, CapX
Former MAGA loyalist and Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene says that President Donald Trump warned her that his “friends would get hurt” if she continued pushing for the Department of Justice to release its files on sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein against Trump’s opposition.
Appearing on fitness instructor and conservative commentator Jillian Michaels’ Keeping It Real podcast over the weekend, Greene claimed that she and the three other Republicans who supported a discharge petition to force a vote on the release of the Epstein files were pressured by the White House “for months” to back down.
“Here’s the interesting part. OK, there were only four Republicans, only four of us that signed that discharge petition: Thomas Massie [R-Ky.], myself, Lauren Boebert [R-Colo.], and Nancy Mace [R-S.C.]. Now, what was happening in the background for months leading up to when we finally got it released is we were getting pressure from the White House” and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to remove their names, she said during the Feb. 15 episode.
“We’re like, ‘Why? We’re talking about the Epstein files.’ This is the ultimate promise. This is the ultimate way to provide transparency,” she continued. “This is the ultimate way to take it to the deep state and expose a whole criminal cabal of rich, powerful elites that I believe control everything. And guess what? Come to find out, they do.”
“They do,” Michaels then chimed in.
“So in the meantime, President Trump is calling it… the whole thing a hoax. He’s calling it a Democrat hoax,” Greene continued. “He won’t have anything to do with the women. He still refuses to have anything to do with these women. So this whole thing is building.”
Greene then expressed confusion about why Trump would fight the release of more information when some of Epstein’s victims or their attorneys have said he did nothing wrong. She also divulged how she thinks the White House “pressured” her and the other three Republicans.
“The White House is putting pressure on Nancy Mace. They take Lauren Boebert into a [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility]. I don’t even know what they said to her in there. They are attacking Thomas Massie, nonstop attacking Thomas Massie,” she added.
The once-staunch Trump supporter then said the president personally berated her for signing the discharge petition.
“And then, one day, I get a phone call from the president in September, and he is so mad at me, and he’s yelling at me, and he’s angry at me,” she said. “And he’s like, ‘You’re supporting Rand Paul Jr.’ [a reference to Massie]. And he’s chewing me out for signing my name on Thomas Massie’s discharge petition to release the Epstein files.”
Greene added, “And I’m trying to tell him, ‘Mr. President, they say you did nothing wrong. This needs to come out.’ And so we’re having this argument. And he tells me on this phone call, he’s like, ‘Marjorie, my friends will get hurt.’”
“That’s it. That’s it,” Michaels interjected.
“Every single person is on this fricking list,” she later added. “They’re all there. Every billionaire, heads of state, Larry Summers, Peter Thiel. They’re all in there.”
The White House did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment on Greene’s remarks.
In late December, a week before Greene was set to resign from Congress after her explosive public break with Trump, she recalled to The New York Times that Trump had yelled so loud at her during the call that he could be heard on speakerphone by everyone in her office. The Times also reported that, at the time, the phone call between the two was their “last conversation.”
President Donald Trump on Tuesday reacted to the death of the Rev. Jesse Jackson by taking a dig at Democrats and former President Barack Obama.
Trump started his statement by paying tribute to Jackson.
“He was a good man, with lots of personality, grit, and ‘street smarts.’ He was very gregarious — Someone who truly loved people!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
Soon after, though, the president shifted his focus to Democrats, using Jackson’s death to trash the party.
“Despite the fact that I am falsely and consistently called a Racist by the Scoundrels and Lunatics on the Radical Left, Democrats ALL, it was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way,” Trump wrote.
This comes after the president was criticised for posting a video depicting former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, as apes. The video was taken down following condemnation from both sides of the aisle. Trump did not apologize for posting the video and claimed the video was uploaded by a staffer.
In his Tuesday statement, Trump singled out Barack Obama, claiming Jackson “could not stand” him.
“Jesse was a force of nature like few others before him. He had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand,” Trump said. “He loved his family greatly, and to them I send my deepest sympathies and condolences. Jesse will be missed!”
While Jackson endorsed Obama in 2008, Jackson’s friends have told reporters that the two-time presidential candidate thought Obama did not pay him sufficient credit for the ways his two campaigns paved the way for Obama’s successful run, HuffPost’s Kevin Robillard has previously reported.
In July 2008, a hot mic on Fox News caught Jackson saying he wanted to “cut [Obama’s] nuts off … for talking down to Black people” after Obama chastised absent Black fathers in one of his speeches. Jackson apologized for the remark.
Jackson “died peacefully on Tuesday morning,” his family announced.
While the statement did not list a cause of death, Jackson had experienced health issues for some time. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2013. His diagnosis changed to progressive supranuclear palsy, a neurodegenerative disorder he was treated for during his recent hospitalization.
Getting enough fibre in your diet has been linked to lowering bowel cancer, dementia and heart disease risk, yet a whopping 90% of us fail to hit the recommended 30g a day.
In response to this, a new trend dubbed “fibremaxxing”, which is all about loading up on as much fibre as possible in a single meal, has cropped up on social media.
People on TikTok have been sharing how they max out their fibre intake at breakfast, for instance. But dietitians cautioned this can be a shock to the system, leading to digestive discomfort, bloating and even diarrhoea or constipation.
That’s where “fibrelayering” comes in.
According to Sasha Watkins, nutritionist and head of health at Mindful Chef, fibrelayering is more of a “slow and steady” approach.
She explained in a social media post that it involves spreading your fibre intake gently across all your meals and snacks throughout the day and week.
The idea is that you’re focusing on consuming diverse types of fibre that support a healthier microbiome, rather than simply loading up.
What actually is fibre?
Dietary fibre is a carbohydrate found naturally in plants. Per the British Nutrition Foundation, it aids in keeping our digestive systems healthy, helps us maintain a healthy bodyweight and prevents constipation.
But different types of fibre can behave very differently in the body, as Dr Emily Leeming, dietitian and author of Fibre Power (now available to pre-order), told Marie Claire.
“Some help to slow the release of sugar into your bloodstream, some tackle ‘bad’ cholesterol helping to support your heart health, others add bulk to your food which stretches your stomach and sends signals to your brain that you’re full and satisfied,” she said.
Registered dietitian Dalia Weinreb noted that as these different types of fibre do different jobs in the body, we don’t simply need “more fibre”, which is what the aim usually is with fibremaxxing.
“We benefit from a variety of fibres feeding different gut microbes and supporting different physiological processes,” she explained.
That’s why she prefers the idea of fibrelayering, because it reflects how the gut works – it’s also a more balanced approach to improving fibre intake.
“Encouraging people to think about diversity rather than just volume shifts the focus from chasing numbers to building balanced, realistic habits,” she told HuffPost UK.
“That’s important, because when nutrition trends become about optimisation or perfection, they can unintentionally create pressure – and that’s often where people disengage or worse, develop disordered eating.”
How to fibrelayer throughout the day
If you’re looking to consume a more diverse range of fibre, Weinreb has suggested a “pick ‘n’ mix” approach from the following categories throughout the day.
1. Soluble fibre
Think: oats, chia seeds, flaxseeds, lentils, beans, apples and carrots.
“This type forms a gel-like substance in the gut. It helps regulate blood sugar, lowers LDL cholesterol, and supports satiety,” explained the dietitian.
“It’s also readily fermented by gut bacteria, producing beneficial short-chain fatty acids.”
2. Insoluble fibre
Think: wholegrains, brown rice, quinoa, nuts, seeds, leafy greens and vegetable skins.
Insoluble fibre adds bulk to stools and supports bowel regularity, she explained. “It’s crucial for motility and digestive comfort.”
3. Prebiotic fibres
Think: onions, garlic, leeks, asparagus, Jerusalem artichokes, slightly green bananas and oats.
Prebiotic fibre acts as food for beneficial gut bacteria, therefore promoting gut health. “These selectively feed beneficial bacteria,” said Weinreb.
“While many soluble fibres have prebiotic effects, certain fibres such as inulin and resistant starch are particularly supportive for microbial diversity.”
4. Resistant starch
Think: cooked and cooled potatoes or rice, legumes, green bananas and oats.
“This behaves almost like a hybrid between soluble and insoluble fibre and is especially valuable for producing butyrate, which supports gut lining integrity and metabolic health,” she added.
Even small fibre changes in your diet can be important
If you layer these across meals – for example, oats and seeds at breakfast, legumes and leafy greens at lunch, and a mix of wholegrains and vegetables at dinner – “they naturally create microbial diversity without needing to overthink it,” said Weinreb.
“That said, I think it’s really important that fibrelayering doesn’t become another perfection-driven checklist. The gut thrives on consistency more than intensity.
“If someone currently eats very little fibre, adding one extra serving of vegetables or one portion of legumes a day is already a win.”
She added that we should celebrate incremental progress, rather than implying there’s a “perfectly curated fibre portfolio” people must hit daily.
Benefits of fibrelayering
If you’re hoping to diversify your fibre intake, Weinreb noted you might see some benefits including:
- Improved digestive regularity
- Reduced bloating over time (once the gut adapts)
- Better blood sugar stability
- Improved cholesterol markers
- Greater satiety and appetite regulation
- Enhanced gut microbiome diversity.
“Ultimately, if fibrelayering encourages people to eat a wider variety of plants, move away from ultra-processed ‘high fibre’ marketing claims, and take a gentler, more balanced approach to gut health, then I think it’s a beneficial movement,” she concluded.
“The key message I’d emphasise is: variety over volume, progress over perfection, and whole foods over expensive supplements.”
That said, if you notice that upping your fibre intake increases uncomfortable gastrointestinal symptoms, you should see a specialist as you may have an underlying condition that needs treating in the gut.
Politics
Reform UK have had a good week. That shouldn’t bother the Tories – just learn lessons as to why
It might astonish the uber-Reform campaigners that have camped out for the last two years in our comments section, but I’m going to say: by any measure Reform UK have had a good week.
Am I about to switch teams? No not at all but I’ve never underestimated them, I talk to them, and so far, my prediction that 2026 would be the year both they and the Tories fight it out until both realise, they aren’t going to destroy the other, is proving true.
I mean it’s also true that when the Conservatives hold this truly awful Labour government to account – the scalps of Mandelson, Rayner, McSweeney, and forcing countless Labour U-turns – Reform would rather die than give them any credit, and immediately gun for the Conservatives but the Government’s U-turn on local elections would not have been possible without Reform pressure.
Suella Braverman opined it was “only possible” because of Reform, somewhat reinforcing my point above, which isn’t true since the Conservatives were officially against delays too, as were the Lib Dems. 5 councils run by Tories opted to request a delay, which has been leapt on as overall party complicity. That is bogus, however Reform should get credit for this one, and unlike them, I’m comfortable admitting it.
In hindsight it was a mistake for the Tories not to insist those councils didn’t follow the party line, but I understand why, and actually the issue back then now lies in Reform. When the delays were first contemplated, the Conservative expectation was May 2026 local elections could be as brutal for them as 2025’s had been. They’ll still be difficult.
Since nearly everyone in the parliamentary party was aware that whilst still a Tory, Robert Jenrick would have made a move for the leadership in those circumstances and at that point, I can see why there was a political argument to let 5 councils opt out. Reduce the number of losses. But it was a mistake.
After all, the utter nonsense that Labour made the decision to do with the law, and local government restructuring rather than political necessity has now been exposed, and in keeping with their entire modus operandi since in Government: they’ve taken all the pain of trying to stop something, for ulterior motives, and ended up in a worse position than where they started.
Labour are cooked. I think we can say that without any party badge on. Doubly cooked with Starmer at the top, but with or without him they are heading further and further left, and there are no solutions to Britain’s problems there.
Reform of course want everyone to believe the Conservatives are heading left too, or rather their new line; that Kemi Badenoch may be on the ‘right’ but a cabal of secret Lib Dem leftists ‘won’t let her do anything she says’. This too is phooey, but I see why they need to say it.
So why do I think Reform had a good week, apart from the legal challenge to the local election delays?
First, they’ve used parliamentary recess well. Their Communications team, who are streets ahead of Labour’s – which of course has the logistical support of a huge Whitehall machine, and is still ineffective – saw a clear space in the news window and owned it. Having done so they then reinforced it.
Yesterday’s press conference was instructive. Not entirely in the way Reform would like it to be, but there are lessons to learn and things to accept.
So we know now who four of his shadow cabinet – that aren’t really the shadow cabinet -are.
Having long ago admitted he needed Whitehall experience he’s had to opt for former Tories to fill his key positions. The egregious Zia Yusuf started his role as home affairs spokesman saying one in twenty five people currently in the UK came here in the last five years.
It wouldn’t be hard to identify someone closely involved in that issue at the time, as she was sat not far from him. Interestingly for those Reformer’s concerned about their insurgency being diluted by ex-Tories, Suella, who won our members survey for ‘back bencher of the year 2025’ got some of the biggest cheers of the event.
I think we can safely now surmise what the price for Rob Jenrick’s defection was, and sure enough he is taking the Treasury role, that both Tice and Yusuf – both themselves former Tories – wanted. Tice postively begged for support to be a Tory London mayoral candidate, and according to Channel 4, Farage had a moment where a Tory seat was discussed. He says offered, they say requested.
I was keen to hear what Rob had to say but at a number of points, in this ‘press conference to prove he’s not a one man band’, Farage answered for them all. Farage has always been a one man band. It’s why for some what he’s so far achieved is impressive. This new line up is, as Shadow Housing and Local Government Secretary James Cleverly put it:
“Still a one man band, but now with backing singers”.
Now before Conservatives get comfortable, and that’s the last thing they should be with regards to Reform, there is a risk here – one the Tories need to avoid. Our columnist Peter Franklin wrote about it last week.
If the Tory brand is still very tarnished in the public’s eyes, they are much more positive towards Kemi Badenoch. Despite the fact that she majors on her strong team, and how they all work as a team, she is the one, rightly, in the spotlight. She cannot renew for 2030 on her own, but increasingly she is the focus.
Does that matter? Well, read Peter’s piece, but it is a trickier line to tread when painting Farage as a one man band.
What some may have missed was when Farage was asked a question. Not the one he could easily have answered but decided rather to patronisingly dismiss from the FT – a tactic he’s used particulalry with female reporters since 2024 and one wonder looks that great outside Reform. No, this was when he was asked how he’d avoid any ‘psychodrama’ in his party now he had ambitious former Tories on board.
He said because ‘I won’t put up with it, simple as that’. That of course is fair enough from a leader, any leader, but he then went on to say that if there were any signs of disloyalty those who showed it ‘won’t be around for very long’.
That’s the quiet bit out loud.
No leader should put up with outright disloyalty, and it’s why Badenoch sacked Jenrick in the first place. She didn’t ‘put up with it’. But disloyalty is the biggest crime in Farage’s book. He’s said it publicly and to my face. The problem is he has a track record of seeing any political disagreement on policy as personal disloyalty, and there’s many a one-time ally that has been utterly ostracised for such a ‘crime’.
James Orr and Danny Kruger are in charge of Reform’s policy. Both very bright, and not to be underestimated, but they aren’t in charge of policy, ultimately. The old jibe within UKIP still stands: “What Nigel wants, Nigel gets”
In hinting at a new policy in the welfare arena, Farage said what he wanted to do, and added it was ‘up to Rob’ how that is achieved. That’s the very system of policy command Jenrick found so intolerable – and having been there I have some sympathy – that came from Rishi Sunak’s number ten operation.
That four people have been given a role in Reform is a step forward for them, it still leaves another sixteen to seventeen Cabinet Roles to fill, before you get to ministerial appointmentsd but they made the most of the recess quiet, to make a splash, and that is worth thinking about for the Tory’s Comms team.
Reform will be pleased with the way this week has gone, even if lingering questions are still being asked about their policy offer. Questions rightly come at all the parties about policy platforms because none of them have yet offered something comprehensive that meaningfully tackles the deep rooted problems the country faces.
The Conservatives, as I said on Sunday, should not be intimidated or cowed by a good week for Reform, just look at the lessons to be drawn, and either exploit the weaknesses – because they certainly exist – or better just keep doing what they have been doing: constantly reminding people they are very far from dead, and very much still in the game.
Of course for the right, It would be so much better if both parties could concentrate fire entirely on the Government.
Sinner on Winter Olympics: “I’m happy being a Tennis Player”
Single Dose of DMT Rapidly Reduces Symptoms of Major Depression
Are small finance banks safe? | #shorts
-
Sports6 days agoBig Tech enters cricket ecosystem as ICC partners Google ahead of T20 WC | T20 World Cup 2026
-
Video2 days agoBitcoin: We’re Entering The Most Dangerous Phase
-
Tech3 days agoLuxman Enters Its Second Century with the D-100 SACD Player and L-100 Integrated Amplifier
-
Video5 days agoThe Final Warning: XRP Is Entering The Chaos Zone
-
Tech1 day agoThe Music Industry Enters Its Less-Is-More Era
-
Sports1 day agoGB's semi-final hopes hang by thread after loss to Switzerland
-
Crypto World1 day agoCan XRP Price Successfully Register a 33% Breakout Past $2?
-
Business11 hours agoInfosys Limited (INFY) Discusses Tech Transitions and the Unique Aspects of the AI Era Transcript
-
Video1 day agoFinancial Statement Analysis | Complete Chapter Revision in 10 Minutes | Class 12 Board exam 2026
-
Crypto World4 days agoBhutan’s Bitcoin sales enter third straight week with $6.7M BTC offload
-
Crypto World6 days agoPippin (PIPPIN) Enters Crypto’s Top 100 Club After Soaring 30% in a Day: More Room for Growth?
-
Video6 days agoPrepare: We Are Entering Phase 3 Of The Investing Cycle
-
NewsBeat3 days agoThe strange Cambridgeshire cemetery that forbade church rectors from entering
-
Business6 days agoBarbeques Galore Enters Voluntary Administration
-
Business3 hours agoTesla avoids California suspension after ending ‘autopilot’ marketing
-
Crypto World6 days agoEthereum Price Struggles Below $2,000 Despite Entering Buy Zone
-
NewsBeat3 days agoMan dies after entering floodwater during police pursuit
-
Crypto World5 days agoKalshi enters $9B sports insurance market with new brokerage deal
-
Tech2 hours agoRetro Rover: LT6502 Laptop Packs 8-Bit Power On The Go
-
NewsBeat4 days agoUK construction company enters administration, records show