Justin Baldoni Is Demanding Disney Hold Onto Documents to Support His Claims Ryan Reynolds Used Nicepool to ‘Bully’ Him

Justin Baldoni is seeking to gain communications made about Ryan Reynolds’ Nicepool character in an attempt to show it was used to “bully” him.

As the It Ends With Us director-actor’s legal battle responding to costar Blake Lively’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims advances, Baldoni’s lawyers sent a litigation hold letter on Jan. 7 to Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige and Disney CEO Bob Iger, demanding they hold onto documents that mention Baldoni for potential use in court.

According to the letter, viewed by PEOPLE, they want “any and all documents relating to the development of the Nicepool character” and “communications relating to the development, writing and filming of storylines and scenes featuring Nicepool.”

To support his claim, Baldoni’s legal team is looking for documents “relating to or reflecting a deliberate attempt to mock, harass, ridicule, intimidate or bully Baldoni through the character of Nicepool,” among other subjects.

A rep for Reynolds and Lively could not be reached by PEOPLE for comment. A spokesperson for Disney did not respond to a request for comment.

Nicepool is a minor character that Lively’s husband Reynolds plays in Deadpool & Wolverine, the blockbuster 2024 film that Reynolds also co-wrote. The character, complete with a man bun, describes himself as a “feminist” in the film and calls the character Ladypool, played by Lively, “gorgeous” and says, “She just had a baby too and you can’t even tell.”

Lively, 37, has sued Baldoni, 40, accusing him of sexual harassment and plotting a smear campaign in retaliation to coming forward about misconduct. Among other claims, Lively alleges in her complaint that Baldoni found “back-channel ways of criticizing her body and weight” after she’d recently given birth to her fourth child.

Additionally, a purported deleted scenes making the rounds on social media shows the Nicepool character saying that his “calling is to one day start a podcast that monetizes the women’s movement.” Baldoni hosted a podcast called Man Enough since 2021 that discussed “modern masculinity.” His co-host Liz Plank left the podcast after Lively’s complaint came to light.

Baldoni’s lawyer Brian Freedman spoke to Megyn Kelly, one of his former clients, on her web show earlier in January and claimed “there’s no question” Nicepool “relates to Justin.”

Baldoni has denied Lively’s claims. Freedman has said Baldoni plans to sue Lively and others soon, and he already filed a $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times over its coverage of Lively’s complaint in December.

In a statement, Freedman claimed the outlet “cowered to the wants and whims of two powerful ‘untouchable’ Hollywood elites,” meaning Lively and Reynolds, who wed in 2012 after meeting on the set of Green Lantern. (The Times stands by its reporting and says it’ll “vigorously” defend against the lawsuit.)

In his complaint, Baldoni alleged that Lively tried to take control of It Ends With Us and that Reynolds, 48, berated him in a meeting held at their New York City apartment.

Baldoni has been cut by his agency William Morris Endeavor, commonly known as WME. His complaint alleged that Reynolds approached his agent at the Deadpool & Wolverine premiere in July and “demanded that the agent ‘drop’ Baldoni.” The agency issued a statement Jan. 1 denying that Reynolds pressured them to drop Baldoni: “This is not true. … nor was there any pressure from Reynolds or Lively at any time to drop Baldoni as a client.”

Lively’s lawyers have said “nothing” about Baldoni’s lawsuit “changes anything” about her claims, which include accusations that Baldoni and another producer entered her trailer “uninvited” while she was undressed or “vulnerable,” and that Baldoni “improvised physical intimacy that had not been rehearsed, choreographed or discussed with Ms. Lively, with no intimacy coordinator involved.”

Her lawyers added in a Jan. 6 statement that the situation is “not a ‘feud’ arising from ‘creative differences’ or a ‘he said/she said’ situation.”

“As alleged in Ms. Lively’s complaint, and as we will prove in litigation, Wayfarer [Studios] and its associates engaged in unlawful, retaliatory astroturfing against Ms. Lively for simply trying to protect herself and others on a film set. And their response to the lawsuit has been to launch more attacks against Ms. Lively since her filing.”

Lively previously revealed at the It Ends With Us premiere in August that Reynolds contributed lines of dialogue to the romantic drama’s rooftop scene.

“We help each other, we work together so much,” she said of Reynolds in that E! News red carpet interview. “…He works on everything I do, I work on everything he does. So his wins, his celebrations are mine and mine are his. He’s all over this film.”

Woman who lost $850,000 to scammers posing as Brad Pitt faces wave of online harassment and mockery

A French woman who revealed on television how she had lost her life savings to scammers posing as Brad Pitt, has faced a wave of online harassment and mockery, leading the interview to be withdrawn on Tuesday.

The woman, named as Anne, told the “Seven to Eight” program on the TF1 channel that she had believed she was in a romantic relationship with the Hollywood star, leading her to divorce her husband and transfer $850,000.

The scammers used fake social media and WhatsApp accounts, as well as AI image-creating technology to send Anne what appeared to be selfies and messages from Pitt.

To extract money, they pretended that the 61-year-old actor needed money to pay for kidney treatment, with his bank accounts supposedly frozen because of divorce proceedings with his ex-wife Angelina Jolie.

Anne, a 53-year-old interior decorator with mental health problems, spent a year and half believing she was communicating with Pitt and only realized she had been scammed when news emerged of Pitt’s real-life relationship with girlfriend Ines de Ramon.

“The story broadcast this Sunday has resulted in a wave of harassment against the witness,” TF1 presenter Harry Roselmack wrote on his X account on Tuesday. “For the protection of victims, we have decided to withdraw it from our platforms.”

Anne was said by the channel at the time of its broadcast to have been suffering from severe depression and received hospital treatment.

The interview, in which she was filmed openly and even shared family photos with reporters, went viral on Monday.

It sparked a deluge of mocking comments and jokes, but some online critics accused TF1 of failing to protect a vulnerable individual who might not have been unaware of the consequences of going public.

Toulouse Football Club tweeted that “Brad told us that he would be at the stadium on Wednesday” for the team’s next match, before withdrawing the message and apologizing.

Netflix France also posted on social media promoting “four films to see with Brad Pitt (really) for free.”

Romance scams have been a feature of the internet since the advent of email, but experts say artificial intelligence has increased the risk of identity theft, hoaxes and fraud online.

Anne told TF1 that she was first contacted by someone posing as Pitt’s mother shortly after she began using Instagram for the first time while on a ski trip with her family in France.

“She told me that her son needed someone like me,” Anne explained.

The scammers messaged her again several days afterwards, this time posing as Pitt.

“At first I said to myself that it was fake, that it’s ridiculous,” Anne explained to TF1. “But I’m not used to social media and I didn’t really understand what was happening to me.”

“I ask myself why they chose me to do such harm like this?” she continued. “I’ve never harmed anyone. These people deserve hell.”

More than 64,000 Americans were taken for over $1 billion in romance scams in 2023 — double the $500 million just four years earlier, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

In 2023, senior citizens were conned out of roughly $3.4 billion in a range of financial crimes, according to the FBI data. The agency recently warned that AI has increased the “believability” or criminal scams given that they “assist with content creation and can correct for human errors that might otherwise serve as warning signs of fraud.”

Red Dye No. 3 Ban: A Landmark Victory in the Fight for Public Health Safety

In an unprecedented move aimed at safeguarding public health, the Biden administration’s FDA has decreed a ban on Red Dye No. 3 in the nation’s food supply—an artificial colorant shrouded in controversy for years. The dye, a synthetic concoction often found lurking in the vivid hues of candies and various processed treats, has long been under the critical lens of health experts. Red 3, already exiled from cosmetics since 1990, has remained an uninvited guest in the edible realm despite its troubling associations with carcinogenicity in animal studies.

Today, the FDA’s decisive action signals a historic victory, especially for persistent crusaders like the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a cohort of public health entities, who have championed the cause for years. “We wouldn’t be celebrating this historic decision today without the relentless leadership of public health champions,” exclaimed Ken Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group. His words echo a collective sigh of relief from many who see this as a triumph over industry interests that have long kept the dye in play.

The controversy surrounding Red 3 is not just its potential carcinogenic threat. Recent scientific inquiries, such as a 2021 assessment by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, have unearthed the dye’s links to behavioral issues in children—such as diminished attention spans and memory lapses. These findings underscore the dye’s potential as not just a physical, but a developmental hazard, particularly pronounced in the most vulnerable: children.

While celebrating the FDA’s decision, figures like Courtney Swan, integrative nutritionist and founder of Realfoodology.com, caution that this is merely a beginning. “Today’s action by the White House is a much-needed step toward making our food safer,” Swan articulated, urging further action against the myriad of harmful chemicals still permitted in our food supply.

The narrative doesn’t end at the cafeteria table. The innovation in public health intervention continues beyond dyes, focusing also on tobacco addiction—a scourge deeply ingrained in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. The synergistic partnership between Kick It California, a tobacco cessation program, and local 211 information services has yielded impressive results, with 55,000 referrals for cessation services recorded between 2021 and 2023 alone. This initiative illuminates the profound impact that accessible, targeted health services can have in addressing tobacco use disparities.

“We already knew that 211 agencies primarily serve people experiencing economic hardship, and we also knew that tobacco use is most concentrated in low-income populations,” insights offered by Shu-Hong Zhu, Ph.D., highlight the crossover between economic and health disparities. The implications of these findings resonate with the broader reach of 211 services, which engaged with over two million Californians in 2022 alone, catalyzing connections to necessary health services.

Notably, the FDA’s recent considerations do not stop at cosmetic additives or smoking cessation—an ambitious, albeit uncertain, path has been carved out towards regulating nicotine content in cigarettes. While the endeavor to cap nicotine—a move that could potentially render cigarettes nonaddictive—sits on the precipice of political inertia, it heralds a significant shift in the public health narrative surrounding tobacco.

The FDA posits that such a regulation could induce a cascade effect, potentially aiding 13 million smokers in kicking the habit and deterring millions of young individuals from starting. However, the tangible realization of this vision is obstructed by formidable hurdles — court challenges from tobacco giants and political reluctance amidst administrative transitions.

Whether it’s the tenacity of public health advocates battling for safer food or innovative partnerships aiming to bridge health inequities, the clarion call for rigorous, evidence-based policy is loud and clear. The journey towards safety and well-being, though fraught with challenges, continues to gather momentum — urging a nation towards the promise of healthier tomorrows.

Farewell to Red No. 3: FDA Cuts Out Cancer-Risk Dye, Boosting Food Safety and Boldly Embracing Change!

In a turn of events that stirred the waters of the food industry, U.S. regulators have cast a bold stroke by banning Red Dye No. 3 from the nation’s food supply. This decision, nearly 35 years after the dye was ousted from the cosmetic aisle due to potential cancer risks, marks a significant move by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This ban finds its roots in a 2022 petition helmed by food safety crusaders demanding the cessation of the dye’s usage—a vibrant hue that brightens candies, snack cakes, and those tempting maraschino cherries alike.

The FDA, in its own words, took this action as a “matter of law,” reverting to the Delaney Clause—a legal posture that mandates the ban of any additive that shows a flicker of cancer risk in humans or other species. These studies, revealing cancer in lab rats, have been pivotal to the FDA’s final decision. The dye, known under the scientific mantel of erythrosine or more commonly as FD&C Red No. 3, has been stripped from the list of federally approved color additives for foods, dietary supplements, and oral drugs—such as those cherry-flavored cough syrups we reluctantly gulp down during flu season.

Back in the day—over three decades ago—the FDA hesitated to authorize Red 3 for cosmetics and topical drugs due to carcinogenic evidence discovered in lab studies. Yet, the food industry clung to it like a remnant of days past, undoubtedly comforted by then—claims that the manner in which Red 3 caused cancer in rats didn’t transpose to humans. Jim Jones, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, stated, “Evidence shows cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No.3. Importantly, the way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans.” Despite this, the dye’s future in American produce is now sealed—manufacturers have been given leeway until January 2027 to transition, while those fabricating drugs have until January 2028.

Critics and advocates have long echoed the call for this ban, considering the dye’s use in lipsticks was halted long ago while its presence lingered in foods consumed by adults and children alike—a double standard, as some would say, that was simply unsustainable. “This is a welcome, but long overdue, action from the FDA,” cheered Dr. Peter Lurie, championing the victory for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Some corners of the industry brace for legal tussles over the FDA’s decision, given the existing skepticism on its carcinogenicity in humans.

Across oceans, Red 3 has already faced the axe from food use in places like Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, barring a few exceptions. California, always one to set the trend, will follow suit come January 2027. Meanwhile, food manufacturers are sniffing out alternatives—beet juice, carmine (sourced from insects, if you can stomach that), and pigments from nature’s pantry including purple sweet potatoes, radishes, and red cabbages, now stand ready as substitutes.

As we move forward, the dye that once painted our treats in bright splashes could soon be a relic of the past—another testament to shifting tides in how we approach the safety and healthfulness of what we consume. The decision not only eradicates a potential health risk but symbolizes a broader commitment to transparency and safety in the food industry.

Challenging the Tobacco Titans: FDA’s Bold Nicotine Cap Aims to Transform Public Health

In a move that has sparked wide-ranging conversations about health policy, addiction, and regulatory power, the Food and Drug Administration has proposed a groundbreaking rule to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes. The aim—ambitious, yet fraught with complexities—is to make these products nonaddictive, thus significantly hampering the tobacco industry’s grasp over millions of Americans.

Washington’s recent announcement, released during the waning days of President Joe Biden’s tenure, faces an uncertain future. Its fate now rests with the incoming administration of Donald Trump, who has yet to comment on the proposal. While the FDA’s considerations promise significant public health benefits—predicting that nearly 13 million current smokers could quit within a year, and millions of youths would avoid picking up the habit altogether—the path to enactment is cluttered with political, legal, and social challenges.

The FDA has long had the backing of antismoking advocates who argue that nicotine regulation is essential for combating chronic diseases. According to Chrissie Juliano from the Big Cities Health Coalition, “Tobacco regulation is a huge part of reaching the goals outlined for reducing chronic disease and a really important part of the conversation we need to have in this country.”

Still, even as the FDA’s analysis—spanning 334 pages—lays bare the potential for dramatic reductions in smoking-related deaths, the proposal’s opponents, prominently the tobacco industry, are poised to counter. Companies such as Reynolds American and Altria, regular denizens of courtroom battles with the FDA, are expected to challenge the rule vigorously.

A deeper dive into the FDA’s history with nicotine regulation reveals a perennial struggle with such legislation. First armed with this regulatory power in 2009, the agency’s journey has been one riddled with both legal battles and issues of practical enforcement. Indeed, the idea of limiting nicotine, while never fully realized, isn’t new. The agency had previously sanctioned a low-nicotine cigarette in 2019, one that contained 95% less nicotine than its conventional counterparts.

Despite the controversies that embroil this proposal, evidence supporting the move is compelling. Research backed by the FDA has signaled that low nicotine cigarettes lead to reduced smoking frequency and increased attempts to quit. Critics have argued that individuals might simply smoke more or turn to other substances, but studies have shown that this isn’t the case. Smokers switching to lower nicotine options neither compensated by consuming more cigarettes nor did they turn en masse to cannabis or alcohol, thus quelling these concerns for the most part.

The proposed nicotine cap—at 0.7 mg per gram of tobacco—marks a significant reduction from the current average of 17.2 mg and aligns with the FDA’s broader mission to reduce smoking rates. By 2060, projections suggest a drop to 1.4% in U.S. smoking rates, a seismic shift that underscores the transformative potential of this policy.

As these discussions unfold, it’s crucial to acknowledge the changing landscape of tobacco products. The industry’s pivot toward alternatives like e-cigarettes and oral tobacco pouches indicates a readiness to adapt, albeit with the ulterior motive of maintaining market share. Regulatory efforts, therefore, must also encompass these newer products to holistically address nicotine addiction and its public health ramifications.

Ultimately, whether this proposal becomes a reality hinges on a complex interplay of politics, science, and public sentiment. As Mitch Zeller, the former director of the FDA’s tobacco center posited, “This would be the single greatest positive impact on public health in the history of public health regulation.” Yet, in an era where public health often collides with politics, the true test will be whether this initiative can transcend partisan divides to prioritize the health of millions.

Puff Piece or Game Changer? FDA’s Bold Move to Slash Nicotine Levels Amidst Political Crosswinds

WASHINGTON — A bold stroke in the domain of public health or just another line drawing exercise? Federal officials have unfurled a proposal that seeks to tackle a behemoth — the addiction gripping millions through cigarettes — by cutting nicotine levels drastically. Yet, like a marathon runner with a sprained ankle, its journey from concept to reality is fraught with hurdles, not the least being the political tide swirling around President-elect Donald Trump.

This initiative from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) isn’t just a headline grabber; it’s an aspiration long held by antismoking crusaders. Capping nicotine content to render cigarettes significantly less addictive could potentially loosen the vice-like grip tobacco holds over many. The agency’s intentions echo through years of painstaking analysis, suggesting that a nicotine ceiling could empower nearly 13 million current smokers to extinguish their last cigarette within a year, all while dissuading 48 million youth from ever lighting up.

Yet, the timing is more than a slight hiccup; it’s a major roadblock. This proposal arrives on the doorstep of a changing administration — and the new occupants have been reticent. Trump’s first FDA commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, previously nudged a similar ambition only to see it sidelined. Now, the silence from President-elect Trump’s camp, including his health secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., speaks volumes. Whether this plan will find traction under Trump’s stewardship remains to be seen, especially with tobacco giants like Reynolds American and Altria poised like sentries, ready to defend their turf through legal skirmishes.

The law, however, gives the FDA some leverage — albeit limited. They can’t erase nicotine from tobacco entirely but can certainly trim it to levels deemed nonaddictive. Intriguingly, the U.S. stands alone globally in this capability, a unique facet amidst international efforts to curb smoking-related fatalities.

Smokers might remember a time when “light” and “low tar” cigarettes promised a healthier puff — only to be debunked and banned. Low-nicotine cigarettes, however, aren’t a fad but a scientifically backed alternative. The FDA-sponsored studies suggest that when smokers switch to these versions, compensatory behaviors like increased smoking don’t occur, unlike the misleading reduced-tar fictions of yesteryears.

Meanwhile, the FDA has pulled another health rabbit out of its regulatory hat — the banishment of the infamous Red Dye No. 3 from foods. This decision, supported by the Delaney Clause, pivots on the dye’s carcinogenic legacy in lab rats. While back in 1990, cosmetics felt the ban’s sting, it took decades more to pull the plug on food products. With a grace period stretching until January 2027, manufacturers have time to scrub their formulas clean. Yet, the shadow of courtroom tussles looms here as well, as doubts linger over the dye’s effects on humans.

This decision was welcomed by health advocates who have long railed against the “red” in our edibles. A poignant moment for some, encapsulated by a statement from Dr. Peter Lurie of the Center for Science in the Public Interest: “This is a welcome, but long overdue, action from the FDA.”

As the dust settles, both these tangential yet crucial battles highlight a volatile intersection of public health, legislative authority, and industry might. From cigarettes to cherries, the quest for health continues — convoluted, contentious, but undeniably vital.

From Silence to Solutions: Challenging the Shadows of Miscarriage, Marburg, and Nicotine’s Grasp

The labyrinthine corridors of modern societal norms often lead to the threshold of debates long overdue, where silence has lingered far too comfortably. In an era where bereavement leave for miscarriage still pines for recognition, public figures like Myleene Klass are championing a cause that cuts to the heart of familial and personal well-being. Klass, a mother who has endured the heartrending experience of four miscarriages, stands resolute against equating such profound loss with the mundanity of a common cold.

With an earnest plea to Britain’s lawmakers, Klass critiques the scanty provisions of support—bereavement leave presently reserved for post-24-week stillbirths—arguing for an inclusive embrace of all pregnancy losses. “How can you dismiss the loss of a child as in the same bracket or the same arena as someone having a common cold,” she questioned on Good Morning Britain, her words reverberating with the anguish shared by countless voices.

The statistics, if not the sentiments, are staggered. More than one in five pregnancies meet their solemn end before reaching 24 weeks, leaving bereaved parents to fend for themselves in a world that offers them little solace beyond ‘sick leave.’ MPs from the Women and Equalities Committee echo Klass’s sentiments, decrying sick leave as an “inappropriate and inadequate form of employer support” for such a devastating experience.

The deafening silence surrounding miscarriages is not merely a personal quagmire but a cultural conundrum. Klass poignantly notes that “it’s a deep, dark secret,” this forced hush that mutes conversations around pregnancy’s first trimester. Women, entwined in this narrative of secrecy, find themselves isolated not just physically but emotionally—a state of being that Klass describes as “an actual effective prison.”

In a parallel narrative of public health, the specter of Marburg virus disease (MVD) looms large over Tanzania, where the World Health Organization (WHO) reports eight suspected deaths. The Kagera region, already a crucible for cross-border human movements, now finds itself under scrutiny—beware the unseen, yet menacing spread of MVD. The disease, with its ominous roster of symptoms from headaches to bleeding from orifices, hearkens back to the primal fears of our collective past.

While the WHO gallantly rallies to contain the threat, the virus, part of the larger family of hemorrhagic fevers, appears to mock our medical arsenal, given the absence of approved vaccines or treatments. Yet, hope shimmers in clinical trials—vaccine candidate cAd3-Marburg leads the vanguard, promising an eventual bulwark against future outbreaks.

Back in the political crucible of Washington, the FDA unfurls a tantalizing vision: cigarettes, stripped of their addictive nicotine allure. With antismoking advocates rallying behind it, the proposal seeks to upend the tobacco titans by capping nicotine—thereby potentially emancipating millions from the grip of addiction. The prospect, however, lies in bureaucratic limbo, its fate tethered to the shifting winds of political will.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s health secretary nominee, offers no clear stance, leaving observers speculating whether tobacco regulation will feature in his battle plans against chronic disease. Tobacco giants stand poised for legal confrontation, ready to contest this unprecedented challenge to their hegemony. Meanwhile, FDA’s research suggests a brave new world where cigarettes lose their sinister charm—where the health benefits could be profound, shaving millions off the death toll that smoking exacts each year.

As we navigate these complex narratives—a poignant testament to human resilience and frailty alike—these stories underscore a universal truth: our world, for all its progress, still grapples with the shadows of its own making. Whether in the form of personal bereavements, viral outbreaks, or nicotine-fueled debates, the call for compassion, clarity, and courage resounds.

Nikotine’s Last Stand: FDA’s Bold Move to Cut Addiction Off at the Knees

The battlefield against smoking—one of the most persistent public health scourges—has taken a tactical turn. The Food and Drug Administration is charting new territory with a bold proposal to drastically reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes, aiming for a seismic shift in smoking habits across America. Yet, the smoke hasn’t cleared on whether this strategy will be rolled out or left to simmer.

The FDA’s initiative, seeking to cap nicotine at levels deemed nonaddictive, emerges from years of meticulous research. It’s an audacious attempt to liberate nearly 13 million smokers from the clutches of cigarettes, not to mention its potential to deter 48 million young people from lighting up in the first place. But the journey from proposal to reality is fraught with hurdles, not least of which is the impending change in White House leadership.

As President Joe Biden’s term wanes, the fate of this initiative teeters. The Trump administration, although quiet on the specifics, holds the reins of its future. History isn’t on the side of swift action. A similar endeavor during Trump’s first spell in office lost momentum, bogged down by industry resistance and legal jousting. Tobacco giants such as Reynolds American and Altria have not hesitated to brandish courtroom challenges against regulations that threaten their bottom line.

Antismoking advocates, however, are rallying behind the FDA. Chrissie Juliano of the Big Cities Health Coalition underscored that “tobacco regulation is a huge part of reaching the goals for reducing chronic disease and a really important part of the conversation we need to have in this country.” The staggering toll of smoking—more than 480,000 U.S. deaths each year—fuels their urgency.

Delving into the mechanics, the FDA’s proposed nicotine ceiling is unprecedented on the global stage. Unlike previous measures that adorned cigarette packs with harrowing imagery, this rule would tackle addiction at its core. Critics argue that reducing nicotine won’t eliminate cigarette toxicity. Yet research leans toward optimism, suggesting that lower nicotine levels diminish dependency and, ultimately, aid smokers in quitting.

Mitch Zeller, who spearheaded the FDA’s tobacco center, paints it as “the single greatest positive impact on public health in the history of public health regulation.” The ambition is colossal—projected to prevent 8.5 million tobacco-related deaths by 2100 and slash the smoking rate to just 1.4% by 2060.

Amid the legislative and lobbying skirmish, the role of the tobacco industry cannot be ignored. Historically, it’s wielded the argument that smokers would just puff more to compensate for the reduced nicotine. Yet, clinical trials tell a different story. Participants who switched to low-nicotine cigarettes reported smoking fewer cigarettes and experiencing fewer cravings. The fear of an illicit market flourishing under new restrictions is also countered by the availability of safer alternatives like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches.

But it’s not all battles lost for big tobacco. Companies have already invested heavily in alternative products. As smoking rates among the educated and affluent plummet, they pivot towards e-cigarettes and other innovations, waiting to catch smokers who want to quit but need a softer landing.

The FDA’s latest move is not just about numbers and policies—it’s about giving back control to those ensnared by addiction. Experts like Dorothy Hatsukami highlight its potential to restore “freedom of choice,” with two-thirds of smokers eager to quit but stymied by the very addiction they wish to escape.

As the curtains fall on the current administration, the stage is set for a dramatically different health landscape—should the proposal survive the political gauntlet.

Pushing Boundaries: Battling the Silent Terror of Marburg and Slashing Smoking’s Stronghold

The tides of public health are shifting—many are familiar with the fight against nicotine addiction, and now a similar battle emerges against a less familiar foe: the Marburg virus. The specter of a Marburg virus disease (MVD) outbreak in Tanzania looms large, with the World Health Organization (WHO) reporting a deadly toll of eight lives claimed in the northwestern Kagera region.

However, unlike nicotine’s ubiquitous and legally entrenched role in our lives, Marburg virus operates in the shadows, surfacing sporadically, but with a vengeance that has alarmed health officials. With symptoms akin to its notorious cousin, Ebola—headaches, severe fevers, and the harrowing specter of bleeding from orifices—this virus leaves devastation in its wake, requiring urgent international attention.

In a region already scarred by previous outbreaks, the implications of delayed detection are stark. The WHO has raised the stakes by declaring the regional risk high due to Kagera’s role as a transit hub—a conduit for cross-border movement leading straight into the arms of neighboring nations like Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi. Each day without containment broadens the canvas of potential contagion.

Healthcare workers, who form the bulwark against diseases, are among those stricken. The virus’s mortality rate—an unforgiving 89%—serves as both a chilling statistic and a clarion call for action. The WHO, while placing the global risk as low for now, acknowledges the slippery slope upon which we tread: “We would expect further cases in coming days as disease surveillance improves,” stated WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Despite the daunting challenges, there remains hope—scientific communities are gearing up for the battle. Promising vaccine candidates are being tested, including a Phase II trial for the cAd3-Marburg, developed by the Vaccine Research Centre at NIAID. Such efforts illuminate paths out of the darkness that MVD casts.

At home, the Food and Drug Administration’s proposal to limit nicotine levels in cigarettes underscores another public health fight—one aimed at crippling the addictive stronghold of tobacco. By reducing nicotine to non-addictive levels, the winds of change could herald not just a decline in smoking rates but also a monumental reduction in smoking-related mortalities.

Yet, much like the Marburg challenge, the journey to a nicotine-cap reality faces hurdles. Opposition warns of an illicit market surge and economic impacts on farmers and retailers. David Spross from the National Association of Tobacco Outlets cautions against potential smuggling across borders, likening it to other banned substances.

However, advocates like Erika Sward of the American Lung Association see a brighter horizon, envisioning a world where non-addictive cigarettes could extinguish the flames of youth smoking initiation. As Dr. Giridhar Mallya of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation points out, tobacco control is a logical step in addressing the broader canvas of preventable chronic diseases.

What connects these narratives—a virus outbreak shrouded in urgency and the calculated steps to regulate nicotine—is the shared goal of healthier, safer communities. Whether navigating the turbulent waters of a viral outbreak or dismantling the chains of addiction, the path forward is never singular or simple. It all boils down to a collective effort, with science, policy, and individual resolve intertwined as cornerstones of progress.

Robert De Niro Is Up Against…Robert De Niro in First ‘Alto Knights’ Trailer

At this point in his career, most people think they’ve seen everything that Robert De Niro (Killers of the Flower Moon) has to offer, but new gangster movie Alto Knights is here to prove otherwise. The story features the Oscar winner doubling down and playing two characters — mob bosses Frank Costello and Vito Genovese — and we’ll get to see him play opposite himself on screen. The thriller is set to premiere in theaters on March 21.

The trailer for Alto Knights doesn’t beat around the bush and reveals what we’re most curious to see: Both De Niros facing each other on screen. In the very first scene, Genovese walks into a restaurant where Costello waits for him at a table. The scene reveals that the duo is close to a crossroads, with Costello trying to signal to Genovese that things are about to get dangerous, while Genovese pushes back. The movie will focus on the different approaches from both mobsters to their life of crime, and what Costello taught Genovese along the way.

As the scene in the trailer suggests, Alto Knights covers the events that led to Genovese ordering a hit on Costello. In the 1950s, both criminals ran separate Italian-American families who ruled the crime underworld. The trailer also makes it clear that one of the clashes between the two gangsters hailed from the way that each of them conducted their public personas, with Costello being well known — he participated in charity events and was featured on the covers of magazines.

Who’s the Team Behind ‘Alto Knights’?

Aside from De Niro taking on the double lead, the cast of Alto Knights also features Debra Messing (Will & Grace), Kathrine Narducci (Godfather of Harlem), Wallace Langham (CSI), Matt Servito (Billions), and Cosmo Jarvis (Shōgun). The movie is directed by Barry Levinson, who has balanced his career between dense projects like You Don’t Know Jack and comedies like What Just Happened. Sometimes he mixed both, like he did in the cinema classic Good Morning Vietnam. The screenplay of Alto Knights is written by Nicholas Pileggi (Goodfellas).

The positioning of Alto Knights’ release is a little weird. The subject and the fact that De Niro plays two characters would be enough to make the movie a serious contender during the awards season, and Levinson hasn’t done a high-profile movie in a while. Releasing a movie this early in the year practically guarantees that voters won’t remember it, unless it’s such a powerful feature that people talk about it for years. However, we can’t ignore that the movie suffered a title change and reports from test screenings suggest that the movie will receive mixed reviews, but we’ll have to wait a couple of months to find out exactly what divided viewers.

Alto Knights premieres in theaters on March 21. Robert De Niro’s previous gangster movie, The Irishman is streaming now on Netflix.

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

The Irishman

R

Biography

Drama

Crime

Release Date November 27, 2019

Director Martin Scorsese

Cast Bobby Cannavale , Jack Huston , Joe Pesci , Jesse Plemons , Sebastian Maniscalco , Al Pacino , Kathrine Narducci , Stephen Graham , Ray Romano , Aleksa Palladino , Anna Paquin , Robert De Niro , Harvey Keitel , Jake Hoffman

Runtime 210 minutes

Writers Steven Zaillian

Expand

Watch on Netflix