ReportWire

Tag: real world

  • The Challenge Star Davis Mallory Says He Prayed The Gay Away… – Perez Hilton

    Davis Mallory is opening up about *becoming* straight.

    You may recognize the name if you’re a reality TV fan from way long ago. But if not: Davis was introduced to the world on MTV‘s The Real World when that show went to Denver for its 18th season in 2006. He publicly came out as gay during his time on that hit series nearly two full decades ago now. Then, he went on to be a mainstay on Real World-adjacent reality via three seasons of The Challenge, including The Inferno 3 in 2007, The Duel II in 2009, and Rivals in 2011.

    Now, he appears to be trying to make it as a singer-songwriter. He’s also pretty religious. And to that last point, he claims to no longer be gay, either, thanks to an intervention from God. Uhhh…

    Related: Daniel Franzese’s Shocking Conversion Therapy Story Will Make You Laugh & Then Ugly Cry!

    The 42-year-old reality TV veteran took to Instagram on Monday with a video of him sharing his religious testimony at the Arise House of Prayer and Worship in Hawaii. During the video, Mallory at one point said “God really pulled me out” of the gay lifestyle last year.

    Huh?!?!

    His quote, in full:

    “I lived the gay lifestyle for about 20 years. I was on a television show, The Real World, and I came out on the show as a gay Christian, but God really pulled me out of that lifestyle a year ago.”

    The crowd began to cheer as Mallory continued trying to explain himself. He claimed God stepped in and pulled him out of the “spiritual warfare” he was involved in:

    “He started speaking to me in my dreams and showing me the spiritual warfare that I was going through. Every time I returned to sin, I would have a nightmare that my car was being broken into. I had a nightmare that I gave my title to someone else, as I was giving my identity to someone else, or my car was sliding backwards. He was just showing me these really strong visual dreams, these visual images of what sin was doing in my life.”

    And then, he played some music — performing his song Baptized for the crowd. He shared that performance in the IG vid, too, which you can see along with his caption (below):

    “Thank you for letting me sing ‘Baptized’ and share my testimony last night in Hawaii.”

    Wild, right?! Well, it gets a little wilder.

    One day before he posted that eyebrow-raising clip, Mallory took to Instagram to share a screenshot from his Notes app. In that message, he wrote:

    “I feel like God gave me this vision that us being righteous and following the law is his perfect plan for us. Sinning in anyway is not his plan for us and is not us honoring his design for how he made us. He did not design us to sin, and when we live a life of sin, we are not just dishonoring God, but we are doing a disservice to ourselves and our character.”

    He captioned that post like this (below):

    “This morning’s revelation… let me know your thoughts?”

    But the eye-catching part was what went down in the comments. An IG follower of the ex-reality star asked straight-up if Davis still considers himself gay:

    “Do you still consider yourself gay?”

    To which Mallory offered a non-reply:

    “What does it mean to be gay?”

    Unmoved, the commenter shot back with:

    “Are you attracted to men? Do you sleep with men?”

    And to that, Mallory again offered up a non-reply:

    “Do I find men beautiful? Yes of course. Do I find women beautiful? Yes of course. We are created in God’s image and in His likeness. The beauty of creation gives glory to the Creator. I’ll ask you this. What do you believe the design of sex is for? What do you believe is sexually immoral behavior?”

    The commenter correctly replied that Mallory was “dodging” the question, then clarified even further what he was asking:

    “Are you sexually attracted to men? And do you have sex with men?”

    And to that, Mallory finally replied directly:

    “To answer your question directly, then NO & NO.”

    The user then asked if Mallory’s apparent sexual orientation reversal had come about after a “conversion therapy of sorts” in recent years:

    “I watched you on The Real World when I was 21 and followed to a degree afterwards. Am I correct in assuming you participated in a conversion therapy of sorts?”

    The answer? “Not really.” Mallory explained:

    “Not really. But God started giving me vivid dreams and healed me from trauma and showed me the spiritual warfare I was under.”

    Uhhh. Okay. Not sure where to go with that one. We just hope Davis is happy, healthy, and living out his life in the most authentic and beneficial way he can… whatever that means for him.

    Reactions, y’all? Share ’em (below).

    [Image via Davis Mallory/Instagram/Instagram]

    Perez Hilton

    Source link

  • Humans Can No Longer Ignore the Threat of Fungi

    Humans Can No Longer Ignore the Threat of Fungi

    This article was originally published by Undark Magazine.

    Back at the turn of the 21st century, valley fever was an obscure fungal disease in the United States, with fewer than 3,000 reported cases a year, mostly in California and Arizona. Two decades later, cases of valley fever have exploded, increasing roughly sevenfold by 2019.

    And valley fever isn’t alone. Fungal diseases in general are appearing in places they have never been seen before, and previously harmless or mildly harmful fungi are becoming more dangerous for people. One likely reason for this worsening fungal situation, scientists say, is climate change. Shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns are expanding where disease-causing fungi occur; climate-triggered calamities can help fungi disperse and reach more people; and warmer temperatures create opportunities for fungi to evolve into more dangerous agents of disease.

    For a long time, fungi have been a neglected group of pathogens. By the late 1990s, researchers were already warning that climate change would make bacterial, viral, and parasite-caused infectious diseases such as cholera, dengue, and malaria more widespread. “But people were not focused at all on the fungi,” says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist and an immunologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. That’s because, until recently, fungi have caused humans relatively little trouble.

    Our high body temperature helps explain why. Many fungi grow best at about 12 to 30 degrees Celsius (roughly 54 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit). So though they find it easy to infect trees, crops, amphibians, fish, reptiles, and insects—organisms that do not maintain consistently high internal body temperatures—fungi usually don’t thrive inside the warm bodies of mammals, Casadevall wrote in an overview of immunity to invasive fungal diseases in the 2022 Annual Review of Immunology. Among the few fungi that do infect humans, some dangerous ones, such as species of Cryptococcus, Penicillium, and Aspergillus, have historically been reported more in tropical and subtropical regions than in cooler ones. This, too, suggests that climate may limit their reach.


    Today, however, the planet’s warming climate may be helping some fungal pathogens spread to new areas. Take valley fever, for instance. The disease can cause flu-like symptoms in people who breathe in the microscopic spores of the fungus Coccidioides. The climatic conditions favoring valley fever may occur in 217 counties of 12 U.S. states today, according to a 2019 study by Morgan Gorris, an Earth-system scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico.

    But when Gorris modeled where the fungi could live in the future, the results were sobering. By 2100, in a scenario where greenhouse-gas emissions continue unabated, rising temperatures would allow Coccidioides to spread northward to 476 counties in 17 states. What was once thought to be a disease mostly restricted to the southwestern U.S. could expand as far as the U.S.-Canadian border in response to climate change, Gorris says. That was a real “wow moment,” she adds, because that would put millions more people at risk.

    Some other fungal diseases of humans are also on the move, such as histoplasmosis and blastomycosis. Both, like valley fever, are seen more and more outside what was thought to be their historical range.

    Such range extensions have also appeared in fungal pathogens of other species. The chytrid fungus that has contributed to declines in hundreds of amphibian species, for example, grows well at environmental temperatures from 17 to 25 degrees Celsius (63 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit). But the fungus is becoming an increasing problem at higher altitudes and latitudes, which likely is in part because rising temperatures are making previously cold regions more welcoming for the chytrid. Similarly, white-pine blister rust, a fungus that has devastated some species of white pines across Europe and North America, is expanding to higher elevations where conditions were previously unfavorable. This has put more pine forests at risk. Changing climatic conditions are also helping drive fungal pathogens of crops, like those infecting bananas and wheat, to new areas.

    A warming climate also changes cycles of droughts and intense rains, which can increase the risk of fungal diseases in humans. One study of more than 81,000 cases of valley fever in California from 2000 to 2020 found that infections tended to surge in the two years immediately following prolonged droughts. Scientists don’t yet fully understand why this happens. But one hypothesis suggests that Coccidioides survives better than its microbial competitors during long droughts, then grows quickly once rains return and releases spores into the air when the soil begins to dry again. “So climate is not only going to affect where it is, but how many cases we have from year to year,” says Gorris.

    By triggering more intense and frequent storms and fires, climate change can also help fungal spores spread over longer distances. Researchers have found a surge in valley-fever infections in California hospitals after large wildfires as far as 200 miles away. Scientists have seen this phenomenon in other species too: Dust storms originating in Africa may be implicated in helping move a coral-killing soil fungus to the Caribbean.

    Researchers are now sampling the air in dust storms and wildfires to see if these events can actually carry viable, disease-causing fungi for long distances and bring them to people, causing infections. Understanding such dispersal is key to figuring out how diseases spread, says Bala Chaudhary, a fungal ecologist at Dartmouth who co-authored an overview of fungal dispersal in the 2022 Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. But there’s a long road ahead: Scientists still don’t have answers to several basic questions, such as where various pathogenic fungi live in the environment or the exact triggers that liberate fungal spores out of soil and transport them over long distances to become established in new places.


    Helping existing fungal diseases reach new places isn’t the only effect of climate change. Warming temperatures can also help previously innocuous fungi evolve tolerance for heat. Researchers have long known that fungi are capable of this. In 2009, for example, researchers showed that a fungus—in this case, a pathogen that infects insects—could evolve to grow at nearly 37 degrees Celsius, some five degrees higher than its previous upper thermal limit, after just four months. More recently, researchers grew a dangerous human pathogen, Cryptococcus deneoformans, at both 37 degrees Celsius (similar to human body temperature) and 30 degrees Celsius in the lab. The higher temperature triggered a fivefold rise in a certain type of mutation in the fungus’s DNA compared with the lower temperature. Rising global temperatures, the researchers speculate, could thus help some fungi rapidly adapt, increasing their ability to infect people.

    There are examples from the real world too. Before 2000, the stripe-rust fungus, which devastates wheat crops, preferred cool, wet parts of the world. But since 2000, some strains of the fungus have become better adapted to higher temperatures. These sturdier strains have been replacing the older strains and spreading to new regions.

    This is worrying, says Casadevall, especially with hotter days and heat waves becoming more frequent and intense. “Microbes really have two choices: adapt or die,” he says. “Most of them have some capacity to adapt.” As climate change increases the number of hot days, evolution will likely select more strongly for heat-resistant fungi.

    And as fungi in the environment adapt to tolerate heat, some might even become capable of breaching the human temperature barrier.

    This may have happened already. In 2009, doctors in Japan isolated an unknown fungus from the ear discharge of a 70-year-old woman. This new-to-medicine fungus, which was given the name Candida auris, soon spread to hospitals around the world, causing severe bloodstream infections in already sick patients. The World Health Organization now lists Candida auris in its most dangerous group of fungal pathogens, partly because the fungus is showing increasing resistance to common antifungal drugs.

    “In the case of India, it’s really a nightmare,” says Arunaloke Chakrabarti, a medical mycologist at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India. When C. auris was first reported in India more than a decade ago, it was low on the list of Candida species threatening patients, Chakrabarti says, but now, it’s the leading cause of Candida infections. In the U.S., clinical cases rose sharply from 63 in the period from 2013 to 2016 to more than 2,300 in 2022.

    Where did C. auris come from so suddenly? The fungus appeared simultaneously across three different continents. Each continent’s version of the fungus was genetically distinct, suggesting that it emerged independently on each continent. “It’s not like somebody took a plane and carried them,” says Casadevall. “The isolates are not related.”

    Because all continents are exposed to the effects of climate change, Casadevall and his colleagues think that human-induced global warming may have played a role. C. auris may always have existed somewhere in the environment—potentially in wetlands, where researchers have recovered other pathogenic species of Candida. Climate change, they argued in 2019, may have exposed the fungus to hotter conditions over and over again, allowing some strains to become heat-tolerant enough to infect people—although the researchers cautioned that many other factors are also likely at play.

    Subsequently, scientists from India and Canada found C. auris in nature on the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal. This “wild” version of C. auris grew much slower at human body temperature than did the hospital versions. “What that suggests to me is that this stuff is all over the environment and some of the isolates are adapting faster than others,” says Casadevall.

    Like other explanations for C. auris’s origin, Casadevall’s is only a hypothesis, says Chakrabarti, and still needs to be proved.

    One way to establish the climate-change link, Casadevall says, would be to review old soil samples and see whether they have C. auris in them. If the older versions of the fungus don’t grow well at higher temperatures, but over time they start to, that would be good evidence that they’re adapting to heat.

    In any case, the possibility of warmer temperatures bringing new fungal pathogens to humans needs to be taken seriously, says Casadevall—especially if drug-resistant fungi that currently infect species of insects and plants become capable of growing at human body temperature. “Then we find ourselves with organisms that we never knew before, like Candida auris.”

    Doctors are already encountering novel fungal infections in people, such as multiple new-to-medicine species of Emergomyces that have appeared mostly in HIV-infected patients across four continents, and the first record of Chondrostereum purpureum—a fungus that infects some plants of the rose family—infecting a plant mycologist in India. Even though these emerging diseases haven’t been directly linked to climate change, they highlight the threat that fungal diseases might pose. For Casadevall, the message is clear: It’s time to pay more attention.

    Shreya Dasgupta

    Source link

  • Somehow, the Science on Masks Still Isn’t Settled

    Somehow, the Science on Masks Still Isn’t Settled

    For many Americans, wearing a mask has become a relic. But fighting about masks, it seems, has not.

    Masking has widely been seen as one of the best COVID precautions that people can take. Still, it has sparked ceaseless arguments: over mandates, what types of masks we should wear, and even how to wear them. A new review and meta-analysis of masking studies suggests that the detractors may have a point. The paper—a rigorous assessment of 78 studies—was published by Cochrane, an independent policy institution that has become well known for its reviews. The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.

    On Twitter, longtime critics of masking and mandates held this up as the proof they’d long waited for. The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, quoted a researcher who has called the analysis the “scientific nail in the coffin for mask mandates.” The vaccine skeptic Robert Malone used it to refute what he called “self-appointed ‘experts’” on masking. Some researchers weighed in with more nuanced interpretations, pointing out limitations in the review’s methods that made it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Even the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, pushed back against the paper in a congressional testimony this week, citing its small sample size of COVID-specific studies. The argument is heated and technical, and probably won’t be resolved anytime soon. But the fact that the fight is ongoing makes clear that there still isn’t a firm answer to among the most crucial of pandemic questions: Just how effective are masks at stopping COVID?

    An important feature of Cochrane reviews is that they look only at “randomized controlled trials,” considered the gold standard for certain types of research because they compare the impact of one intervention with another while tightly controlling for biases and confounding variables. The trials considered in the review compared groups of people who masked with those who didn’t in an effort to estimate how effective masking is at blunting the spread of COVID in a general population. The population-level detail is important: It indicates uncertainty about whether requiring everyone to wear a mask makes a difference in viral spread. This is different from the impact of individual masking, which has been better researched. Doctors, after all, routinely mask when they’re around sick patients and do not seem to be infected more often than anyone else. “We have fairly decent evidence that masks can protect the wearer,” Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Brown University, told me. “Where I think it sort of falls apart is relating that to the population level.”

    The research on individual masking generally shows what we have come to expect: High-quality masks provide a physical barrier between the wearer and infectious particles, if worn correctly. For instance, in one study, N95 masks were shown to block 57 to 90 percent of particles, depending on how well they fit; cloth and surgical masks are less effective. The caveat is that much of that support came from laboratory research and observational studies, which don’t account for the messiness of real life.

    That the Cochrane review reasonably challenges the effectiveness of population-level masking doesn’t mean the findings of previous studies in support of masking are moot. A common theme among criticisms of the review is that it considered only a small number of studies by virtue of Cochrane’s standards; there just aren’t that many randomized controlled trials on COVID and masks. In fact, most of those included in the review are about the impact of masking on other respiratory illnesses, namely the flu. Although some similarities between the viruses are likely, Nuzzo explained on Twitter, COVID-specific trials would be ideal.

    The handful of trials in the review that focus on COVID don’t show strong support for masking. One, from Bangladesh, which looked at both cloth and surgical masks, found a 9 percent decrease in symptomatic cases in masked versus unmasked groups (and a reanalysis of that study found signs of bias in the way the data were collected and interpreted); another, from Denmark, suggested that surgical masks offered no statistically significant protection at all.

    Criticisms of the review posit that it might have come to a different conclusion if more and better-quality studies had been available. The paper’s authors acknowledge that the trials they considered were prone to bias and didn’t control for inconsistent adherence to the interventions. “The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect,” they concluded. If high-quality masks worn properly work well at an individual level, after all, then it stands to reason that  high-quality masks worn properly by many people in any situation should indeed provide some level of protection.

    Tom Jefferson, the review’s lead author, did not respond to a request for comment. But in a recent interview about the controversy, he stood by the practical implications of the new study. “There’s still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic,” he said.

    Squaring all of this uncertainty with the support for masking and mandates early in the pandemic is difficult. Evidence for it was scarce in the early days of the pandemic, Nuzzo acknowledged, but health officials had to act. Transmission was high, and the costs of masking were seen as low; it was not immediately clear how inconvenient and unmanageable masks could be, especially in settings such as schools. Mask mandates have largely expired in most places, but it doesn’t hurt most people to err on the side of caution. Nuzzo still wears a mask in high-risk environments. “Will that prevent me from ever getting COVID? No,” she said, but it reduces her risk—and that’s good enough.

    What is most frustrating about this masking uncertainty is that the pandemic has presented many opportunities for the U.S. to gather stronger data on the effects of population-level masking, but those studies have not happened. Masking policies were made on sound but limited data, and when decisions are made that way, “you need to continually assess whether those assumptions are correct,” Nuzzo said—much like how NASA collects huge amounts of data to prepare for all the things that could go wrong with a shuttle launch. Unfortunately, she said, “we don’t have Houston for the pandemic.”

    Obtaining stronger data is still possible, though it won’t be easy. A major challenge of studying the effect of population-level masking in the real world is that people aren’t good at wearing masks, which of course is a problem with the effectiveness of masks too. It would be straightforward enough if you could guarantee that participants wore their masks perfectly and consistently throughout the study period. But in the real world, masks fit poorly and slip off noses, and people are generally eager to take them off whenever possible.

    Ideally, the research needed to gather strong data—about masks, and other lingering pandemic questions—would be conducted through the government. The U.K., for example, has funded large randomized controlled trials of COVID drugs such as molnupiravir. So far, that doesn’t seem to have happened in the U.S.  None of the new studies on masking included in the Cochrane review were funded by the U.S. government. “The fact that we never as a country really set up studies to answer the most pressing questions is a failure,” said Nuzzo. What the CDC could do is organize and fund a research network to study COVID, much like the centers of excellence the agency has for fields such as food safety and tuberculosis.

    The window of opportunity hasn’t closed yet. The Cochrane review, for all of its controversy, is a reminder that more research on masking is needed, if only to address whether pro-mask policies warrant the rage they incite. You would think that the policy makers who encouraged masking would have made finding that support a priority. “If you’re going to burn your political capital, it’d be nice to have the evidence to say that it’s necessary,” Nuzzo said.

    At this point, even the strongest possible evidence is unlikely to change some people’s behavior, considering how politicized the mask debate has become. But as a country, the lack of conclusive evidence leaves us ill-prepared for the next viral outbreak—COVID or otherwise. The risk is still low, but bird flu is showing troubling signs that it could make the jump from animals to humans. If it does, should officials be telling everyone to mask up? That America has never amassed good evidence to show the effect of population-level masking for COVID, Nuzzo said, has been a missed opportunity. The best time to learn more about masking is before we are asked to do it again.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link