Observational data suggests patients on GLP-1 therapy had much lower five-year mortality

• Patients with colon cancer using GLP-1 receptor agonists (the class of drugs behind treatments like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro) had substantially lower five-year death rates than those not using them (15.5% vs. 37.1%).

• The research examined more than 6,800 colon-cancer patients from across the University of California Health system and adjusted for age, BMI, disease severity, and other health factors.

• While the results are real-world and observational (which means they cant prove cause-and-effect), researchers believe this finding is important enough to trigger formal clinical trials.

According to a recent report from the University of California San Diego, people with colon cancer who were using GLP-1 meds had much lower five-year mortality rates than those who did not.

While this doesnt yet mean these drugs are a proven cancer-treatment, it does shine a light on how medications developed for one purpose (blood-sugar control, weight loss) might have ripple effects into other health areas including cancer.

The study

The research team turned to real-world clinical data housed in the University of California Health Data Warehouse.

They included over 6,800 patients diagnosed with colon cancer who had been treated across the systems academic medical centers. The core comparison: those who were taking GLP-1 receptor agonists vs. those who were not.

Crucially, the analysis adjusted for key factors that could influence survival: age, body mass index (BMI), severity of disease, and other health conditions.

That means the observed survival differences likely arent just because GLP-1 patients were healthier in other obvious ways they tried to control for those variables. Still, being observational, the study can show association but cannot prove that GLP-1 use caused the improved survival.

The results

Heres the headline: among colon cancer patients in this dataset, those on GLP-1 medications had a five-year death rate of about 15.5%, compared with 37.1% for those not on GLP-1s. Thats less than half the mortality rate in the non-GLP-1 group.

The benefit appeared especially striking in patients whose BMI exceeded 35, suggesting that the drugs effects on weight, metabolism, and inflammation might play a role.

The researchers note several possible mechanisms: GLP-1 agents may reduce systemic inflammation, improve insulin sensitivity, promote weight loss, and even in lab studies suppress tumor cell growth or alter the tumor microenvironment.

Importantly, the authors emphasize that despite the promising numbers, more research and randomized trials are needed before declaring GLP-1 drugs as a definitive cancer-survival therapy.

What this means for you

If you or a loved one has colon cancer (especially in the context of elevated BMI or metabolic issues), this study offers a note of cautious optimism. However, its not time yet to assume GLP-1 meds will replace standard cancer care. Talk to your oncologist or endocrinologist about whether any of this might apply in your case.

New Danish research links extra device hours with early heart-health markers in kids and teens

• More recreational screen time in children and teens was tied to higher cardiometabolic risk think higher blood pressure, less-favorable cholesterol, and insulin resistance.

• The association was stronger among youth who got less sleep suggesting that screen use may affect heart health in part by stealing sleep.

• Each extra hour of screen time per day wasnt dramatic on its own, but when you add multiple hours, it adds up to a measurable shift in risk.

In a world where kids and teens are increasingly spending hours on phones, tablets, gaming consoles and TVs, its worth asking: what all that screen time especially the unstructured, recreational kind might be doing to their bodies?

According to a new study from Denmark published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, more screen time among younger people may be tied to signs of elevated risk for heart and metabolic trouble later on.

While the findings dont prove cause and effect, they shine a light on how modern screen habits could relate to the groundwork for future heart health.

Limiting discretionary screen time in childhood and adolescence may protect long-term heart and metabolic health, researcher David Horner, M.D., PhD., said in a news release.

Our study provides evidence that this connection starts early and highlights the importance of having balanced daily routines.

The study

Researchers analyzed data from more than 1,000 participants drawn from two long-running Danish cohort studies known as COPSAC Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood. The first group was around age 10 (from a 2010 birth-cohort) and the second about age 18 (from a 2000 birth-cohort).

Screen time was self- or parent-reported, covering hours spent watching TV/movies, gaming, or using phones, tablets, or computers for leisure.

To assess risk, the team created a composite cardiometabolic score based on waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, good HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and blood glucose each standardized for age and sex.

They also looked at sleep duration (using data from sensors worn for 14 days), timing of sleep, and used advanced metabolomics to detect a possible biological fingerprint of screen time.

The results

Overall, the study found a clear pattern: the more time kids and teens spent on screens for fun, the more likely they were to show early signs linked to future heart and metabolic problems.

For both age groups 10-year-olds and 18-year-olds extra daily screen time was connected with things like:

• Higher blood pressure

• Less-healthy cholesterol levels

• More insulin resistance, which can be an early sign of issues with blood sugar

• A bigger waist measurement, which can be one marker of health risk
  

None of these changes were huge on their own, but they added up. For example, every extra hour a day of recreational screen time was tied to a small but noticeable shift toward higher overall health risk. In teens, that shift was a little stronger than in younger kids.

The researchers also found that sleep played a big role. Kids and teens who slept less or went to bed later had an even stronger link between screen time and these health markers. In younger kids, a portion of the screen-time effect could be explained by the fact that screens were cutting into their sleep.

Finally, among the 18-year-olds, more screen time was also tied to a higher predicted risk of developing heart disease later in life. Again, it wasnt dramatic, but it was enough for researchers to pay attention.

What this means for you

If youre parenting or working with young people, the message isnt: ban screens forever.

Rather, its a reminder that heavy recreational screen use may subtly shift the balance of heart-and-metabolic health risk especially when paired with less sleep. Simple, practical steps like encouraging earlier bedtimes, limiting usage in the hour before bed, and introducing non-screen leisure or movement might help.

Because this was an observational study (not a randomized trial), it doesnt prove screen time causes these changes but it does justify conversations about screen habits and sleep as part of healthy routines. Even if each extra hour only nudges risk a little, multiple hours add up. Limiting discretionary screen time and protecting sleep could be one of many small moves that support longer-term heart health in younger generations.

Trump administration plans mass SNAP reapplications amid fraud crackdown

Agriculture secretary says millions will be told to reapply for SNAP benefits
Critics warn fraud claims are overstated and rules already require frequent recertification
Push comes amid major federal cuts and political pressure to show crackdown on waste

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says the Trump administration will require millions of low-income Americans to reapply for food stamps as part of a sweeping effort to crack down on alleged program fraud.

Rollins told Newsmax on Thursday that she intends to have everyone reapply for their benefits, saying the goal is to ensure that every person receiving a taxpayer-funded SNAP benefit literally [is] vulnerable and cant survive without it. She offered no timeline or details on how the reapplication process would work.

SNAP under renewed political scrutiny

Her comments come amid heightened attention to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which serves nearly 42 million people and cost about $100 billion in fiscal year 2024. Funding lapses during the recent government shutdown fueled conservative criticism of the programs reach and cost including from President Donald Trump.

While fraud can involve participants misrepresenting income, retailers trading benefits for cash, or criminals skimming EBT cards, anti-hunger advocates argue the problem is far smaller than the administration claims. The average SNAP benefit is roughly $6 per day, they note, and participants must already report changes in income and recertify as often as every six months under state rules.

New oversight push includes data demands

Rollins has signaled a broader SNAP overhaul in the coming weeks. She has already directed states to submit sensitive participant data, including Social Security numbers a request that is now being challenged in court.

On Thursday, she said preliminary data from 29 states show 186,000 deceased individuals are receiving a check through SNAP, an assertion likely to intensify the administrations claims of systemwide waste. Checks aren't used in the SNAP program. Recipients get their funds on a debit card.

Cuts and work rules reshape the program

The push arrives after months of negotiations over federal spending and the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed in July, which enacted a $186 billion cut to SNAP along with stricter work requirements and tighter eligibility rules. Officials have framed the changes as part of a larger effort to reduce government spending through the DOGE initiative.

Trump this week reiterated his view that SNAP enrollment is too high. People keep talking about SNAP. But SNAP is supposed to be if youre down and out, he said on Fox News, according to Politico. While stressing that people who truly need assistance should receive it, he argued that able-bodied individuals sometimes leave work because benefits are easier, adding, Thats not the purpose of it.

Class action alleges hidden incentives

Zillowbest known for its home-search platformis now facing a proposed nationwide class action that claims the company steered homebuyers into using its own mortgage subsidiary, Zillow Home Loans, without revealing the powerful incentives driving those referrals.

Filed last week in federal court in Seattle, the lawsuit alleges Zillow operated a pay-to-play lead-distribution system that rewarded real-estate agents with high-value buyer leads only if they successfully referred clients to Zillow Home Loans. If agents didnt meet those unofficial quotas, the suit claims, Zillow allegedly throttled their access to valuable leads.

At the center of the case is Alaska homebuyer Araba Armstrong, who says she ended up with a Zillow-originated mortgage because she assumed her agents recommendation was independent. According to the lawsuit, it wasnt: Participating Agents in Zillows Premier Agent and Flex programs allegedly received better or more frequent buyer leads if they pushed customers toward Zillow Home Loans.

The suit contends that this violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), which bans kickbacks or things of value exchanged for mortgage referrals. Zillows alleged lead-priority structure, plaintiffs claim, qualifies as exactly that.

While Zillow has not yet filed a detailed response in court, previous corporate statements emphasize that the company aims to comply with all applicable laws and seeks to deliver a streamlined home-buying experience.

Why this matters to consumers

Buying a home is one of the largest financial transactions most people ever undertake. Even a slightly higher interest rate or unexpected fees can cost tens of thousands of dollars over the life of a mortgage. The core concern in this lawsuit is transparency: Did consumers really get impartial guidance, or were they steeredwithout their knowledgetoward a lender that benefited Zillow and its agents?

If a court concludes that homebuyers werent given full and truthful disclosureor that agents were financially incentivized to make certain referralsconsumers could be owed refunds, damages, or restitution for higher-cost loans.

How big could the impact be?

Zillow Home Loans originated more than $3 billion in mortgages in 2024. If the plaintiffs allegations prove true on a class-wide basis, the case could have industry-wide consequences, especially for integrated real-estate platforms that blend agent-matching, lead generation, and mortgage lending.

The proposed class would include any U.S. consumer who was referred to Zillow Home Loans by a participating agent and went on to obtain a mortgage from ZHLa potentially large population given Zillows national footprint.

What to do if you used Zillow Home Loans recently

1. Pull your closing documents

Check if your Loan Estimate, Closing Disclosure, or email correspondence includes:

• Agent recommendations

• Mortgage quotes from other lenders

• Disclosures related to affiliated business arrangements

2. Review whether you were presented with alternatives

The complaint alleges some borrowers were not told about competing lenders at all.

3. Compare your loan terms with market rates at the time

Even a 0.25% difference can be significant over 30 years.

4. Look for steering indicators

Examples may include:

• Agent insisting Zillow was the preferred or required lender

• Not receiving comparisons

• Feeling pressured to stay within the Zillow ecosystem

5. Preserve documentation

If you believe you may have been affected, save:

• Emails and texts with your agent

• Zillow portal messages

• Loan-offer sheets

• Closing documents
  These may be relevant if the court certifies the class.

Prevention tips: How to avoid mortgage steering

• Always get at least two competing mortgage quotes. You can usually do this with no hit to your credit score using soft-pull prequalification tools.

• Ask your agent directly: Are you receiving any benefit, leads, or incentives if I choose this lender?

• Be wary of preferred lender language unless you know why theyre preferred.

• Keep lender and agent decisions separate. A home-search platform shouldnt decide who finances your loan.

• Walk away from pressure tactics. No buyer is required to use a specific lender to qualify for an offer, tour, or lead.