The Canadian scandal tied to one of Trump’s closest political allies

 



Not her best move

In March 2025, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith was at the center of controversy following her March 8th interview with Breitbart, where she appeared to suggest that former U.S. President Donald Trump should be involved in the upcoming Canadian elections. This comment sparked widespread criticism.

An interview with Breitbart that went awry

While the interview occurred before Mark Carney was elected as the new Liberal Party and Canadian Prime Minister on March 9th, and long before Carney called an election on March 23rd, Smith’s comments were still very concerning for her country. 

The political situation in Canada

Political analysts and experts had assumed that whichever leadership candidate won the Liberal leadership race would call a snap election to earn the mandate required to deal with the trade and tariff threats being levied against Canada by Donald Trump and his administration. 

Trump’s tariff threats

Trump had threatened to levy a 25% tariff on all Canadian exports to the United States as a way of forcing Canada to deal with drugs and illegal immigrants, he claimed were making their way into the United States from its northern border with Canada.

The tariffs eventually happened

Trump delayed his tariff in February but put it into place on March 4th. The months of the President’s tariff threats, alongside his questioning of Canada’s sovereignty as a, played an important role in transforming the political fortunes of the Liberal Party. 

The political fortunes of the Liberal Party

In December 2024, the public polling firm Ipsos found that the Liberal Party was about to suffer a historic defeat in any upcoming election. The Liberals were polling at 20% of the vote compared to 45% for the Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre.

Reversing a major polling deficit

By March 18th, the Liberals had reversed their 25-point deficit and were projected to win the next federal election by a 6-point margin with 42% of the vote compared to 36% for the Conservatives. The shift in political fortunes was down to two factors. 

The two things that shifted everything

First, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned in early January 2025, opening the door for a successor to restart the party's politics, and second, there was the political reaction to Trump’s tariff and sovereignty threats, which have galvanized Canadian nationalism. 

A dramatic resurgence in the polls

In late January, the Liberal party had already seen a dramatic resurgence in the polls, breaking above a 30-point threshold for the first time since September 2022, according to EKOS Politics’ polling. They sat at 32% of the vote to the Conservatives' 39%. 

Trump is largely to blame

“The cavalcade of radical announcements from the freshly inaugurated Donald Trump has spurred a renewed sense of national identity, prompting Canadians to rally around their incumbent leaders in a show of solidarity,” EKOS Politics wrote in its analysis of its polling.

Smith's Breitbart interview

This brings us to Smith's March 8th comments, in which she revealed that she told the Trump administration that she wanted them to halt U.S. sanctions on Canada because they were only helping the Liberal Party and hurting the Conservative Party.

What Smith said

“Before the tariff war, I would say yes. I mean, Pierre Poilievre is the name of the Conservative Party leader, and he was miles ahead of Justin Trudeau. But because of what we see as unjust and unfair tariffs, it’s actually caused an increase in the support for the liberals,” Smith Said.

Tariffs only help the Liberals

“And so that’s what I fear, is that the longer this dispute goes on, politicians posture, and it seems to be benefiting the Liberals right now,” Smith said, according to a quote from Breitbart. “So I would hope that we could put things on pause is what I’ve told administration officials.”

The most problematic remark

“Let’s just put things on pause so we can get through an election,” Smith added, noting Poilievre would open more opportunities for the US-Canada relationship. It was this statement that led many political observers in Canada to criticize Smith for asking what looked like US interference in Canada’s election, according to CTV News.

A damaging interview

CTV News reported that Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt called the interview “damaging,” while Bratt’s colleague, Lori Williams, told the outlet in an email it was not surprising but it was a potential problem for Pierre Poilievre. 

The issue could hurt Poilievre

“This could reinforce views about PP [Poilievre] being Trump-like,” Williams explained. Smith has pushed back against the claims that she asked the Trump administration to interfere in Canada’s election. 

What will happen next?

In the end,  the scandal over Smith’s comments did hurt Poilievre as Canada was set to head to the polls on April 28th. The Conservatives had no chance of winning, and Mark Carney became Canada's new Prime Minister.

Fruit, veg and nut diet ‘could prevent around 15 million deaths globally’

 




A diet rich in fruit and vegetables and low in meat and dairy could prevent around 15 million deaths across the globe each year, new analysis shows.

The planetary health diet is linked to a 27% reduced risk of premature death, as well as lower levels of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases, a report from 2025 Eat-Lancet Commission said.

This diet is mostly made up of whole grains, fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes such as lentils and kidney beans, with only moderate or small amounts of fish, dairy and meat.

This diet is mostly made up of whole grains, fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes such as lentils and kidney beans, with only moderate or small amounts of fish, dairy and meat.

Researchers wrote: “At present, all national diets deviate substantially from the planetary health diet, but a shift to this pattern could avert approximately 15 million deaths per year (27% of total deaths worldwide).

“Such a transition would reduce the rates of many specific non-communicable diseases and promote healthy longevity.”

Experts pointed to environmental benefits of the diet, saying it could reduce demand for resource-intensive foods such as red meat, thereby cutting greenhouse gas emissions and land and water use.

The diet recommends people eat whole grains (around 150g or three to four servings per day), fruit and vegetables (500g or at least five servings per day), nuts (25g or one serving per day), and legumes (75g or one serving per day).

It can include moderate intake of animal foods such as red meat (up to 200g or one serving per week), poultry (up to 400g or two servings per week), fish (up to 700g or two servings per week), eggs (3-4 per week), and dairy (up to 500g per day or one serving of milk, yoghurt or cheese per day).

The diet also calls for limiting added sugars, saturated fats and salt – often found in processed foods.

Dr Helen Croker, assistant director of research and policy at the World Cancer Research Fund, said: “The commission provides welcome clarity on the vital challenge of supporting healthy diets which are sustainable and accessible to all globally.

“The planetary health diet set out in this report is associated with improved health outcomes – and research that we have funded also supports such a diet for people after a cancer diagnosis.

“It’s heartening that healthy diets can align with the most sustainable globally, but now we need to see countries implementing policies to improve access to them.”

The Lancet report found that current global food systems contribute to 30% of greenhouse gas emissions and are the largest driver of “planetary boundary transgressions” through their impact on climate, biodiversity, freshwater consumption and changes in how land is used.

Planetary boundaries are defined as the thresholds that keep the “life support” system of the planet – which humans rely on – stable and healthy.

Researchers said that, although there is enough food produced globally, almost half of the world’s eight billion people (about 3.7 billion) do not have reliable access to healthy food, a clean environment, or earn a living wage.

The diets of the wealthiest 30% of the global population are responsible for approximately 70% of the overall environmental pressures caused by food systems, they added.

“Transforming food systems is a significant environmental and social challenge, but it is a precondition for us to have a chance of returning within a safe climate system and a healthy planet,” said Johan Rockstrom, commission co-chairman and director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“How we produce and consume food affects the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil that grows our crops, and the health and dignity of workers and communities.”

The findings suggest if the entire world shifted to the planetary health diet and there were strong climate policies to reduce emissions across all sectors, greenhouse gas emissions could drop by more than half – equivalent to removing emissions from all coal-fired power plants globally.

The commission also called for action to protect remaining forests, wetlands, and other natural habitats to preserve biodiversity.

The report said governments can take action to promote healthy food, including through taxes on unhealthy products, while offering subsidies for fruit and vegetables.

Line Gordon, commissioner and director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, said: “The private sector can play a crucial role in transformation, but an effective food system transformation needs to ensure that decision-making is for the public good and protected from undue corporate influence.”


What stress does to your health after a day, a week, a month, and a year

 What stress does to your health after a day, a week, a month, and a year


Stress is a natural process that can be beneficial in some instances, but highly detrimental in others. The biological ‘fight or flight’ response evolved millions of years ago to protect early humans from physical threats, and we have carried it through to the modern day where the threats are very different. We’re no longer being chased by predators or living in caves, but data suggests we’re more stressed than ever. The Mental Health Foundation reports that over three-quarters of adults (78 per cent) have felt so stressed at some point in the last year that they felt overwhelmed or unable to cope. According to Mental Health UK, nine in 10 (91 per cent) of UK adults experienced high pressure or stress at some point in 2024. “Stress levels across the UK have increased in recent years,” says Dr Reem Hasan, NHS GP and Chief Medical Officer at Vista Health. “I see this frequently across my patient group, and its impact on mental and physical health.” She cites several underlying reasons, including the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, workplace demands, and family or caring responsibilities. 

'Healthy' stress



She emphasises that some stress is inevitable, and can even be helpful. “Healthy stress can help us perform better, stay alert, and achieve goals. It’s the body’s way of preparing for challenges with increasing focus, energy, and motivation. However, unhealthy or chronic stress occurs when those pressures become constant or feel uncontrollable.” The difference, she says, depends on the duration, how you respond (with control or panic), and whether or not you rest. We spoke to the experts to understand exactly what happens to our health when we experience short and long term stress, and the best, science backed ways to manage it.

After an hour

Stressors can pop up out of nowhere: suddenly receiving an urgent complaint at work; a delay on the tube making you late for an appointment. Whatever the trigger might be, the brain interprets it as a threat and swings into action, prompting the release of stress hormones that put the rest of the body on high alert, says Adriana Kober, a clinical psychologist at the Priory Group. The immediate effects can include a sense of fear and worry. “The prefrontal cortex is temporarily impaired, which affects decision making and focus,” she says. “There’s also difficulty in concentrating on multitasking: our brain is in survival mode.” However, under stress, our dopamine levels also rise, leading to enhanced alertness and attention: “Our reflexes are quick and we’re very reactive, both physically and emotionally.

Acute stress

How you react to acute stress depends on what in psychology is called the cognitive appraisal process. If you perceive the demands on you to be beyond your ability to manage, the stressor is interpreted as a threat; but if you perceive them as challenging but manageable, the stressor is simply a challenge. This response is subjective and shaped by both nature and nurture. Acute stress leads to raised blood pressure and heart rate, as “the body diverts resources to functions essential for immediate survival like your brain and muscles”, says Dr Hasan. “Your breathing rate increases to speed up distribution of oxygen-rich blood, your muscles tense, and functions like insulin sensitivity and digestion take a back seat.” Another positive effect is on immunity – short term stress stimulates the immune system, and which can aid the control of inflammation, she says. 

After a day

It’s not unusual for stress to lead to digestive symptoms – either slowing it down or speeding it up, says Dr Hasan. “It’s not clear cut why it goes one way or the other but blood being diverted away from the digestive system can result in symptoms like bloating, indigestion, constipation, or if it speeds it up you’ll get symptoms like diarrhoea or cramping. It’s also going to increase acid production in your stomach so you’re more likely to get acid reflux or gastritis. If you suffer with anything under the umbrella of Irritable Bowel Syndrome, stress will definitely trigger or worsen it.” Meanwhile muscle tension from a stressful day can result in headaches and aches and pains, particularly in the back, neck, shoulders and jaw. How to combat it: If you think acute stress is causing or worsening health symptoms, incorporate time into your day to relax. Experts recommend exercise – even dancing or shaking your body – taking a walk outside in nature, or breathing exercises. A systematic review found belly breathing – engaging the diaphragm and deep breathing – can reduce stress and cortisol levels.

After a week

Stress is most beneficial for acute periods of time, and once dealt with, the responses should dissipate. But if the nervous system stays on high alert as the social stressor continues, it can have negative impacts. “If we have a week of ongoing stress, it keeps us emotionally on edge all the time,” says Kober. “The prefrontal cortex function continues to decline, meaning reducing cognitive flexibility. There’s poor impulse control” – this could look like snacking, boozing, or spending impulsively – “and the hippocampus, which is the memory centre, starts to show signs of stress-related dysfunction.” This means planning will become much harder, as will keeping track of plans and staying on focus. A week of sustained stress is also likely to impact sleep. Fight or flight causes mental and physical hyperarousal, making it much harder to relax. “After a few days of sleep disruption, our REM and deep sleep is affected, which the body needs to really rest,” Kober says. “Then this all affects memory consolidation and the way that we regulate our mood.”

Effects on the digestive system



Physiologically, Dr Hasan says that sustained high blood pressure and heart rate, even over a relatively short duration, can still elevate your cardiovascular risk. Additionally, “that persistent muscle tension is going to lead to soreness, often jaw pain, reduced mobility. At this point, stress can begin to lower your immune efficiency. You’re beginning to be a little bit more susceptible to minor infections as your baseline has been lowered”. Stress also disrupts the balance and communication between the gut and the brain which can lead to GI symptoms, Dr Hasan says. “So even in the absence of physical disease, the disruption of the gut brain axis can create IBS problems.”

How to combat it



At this early stage of a stressful period, establishing good habits can prevent or reduce impacts on health. Sleep should be a priority. Establish a clear routine – getting up at the same time every day, to regulate circadian rhythms and the release of stress and sleep hormones. Finding ways to manage everyday stress can help keep chronic diseases under control. A study last year by Kings College London found interventions to improve mood, such as exercise, antidepressants and therapy, reduced inflammation in people with inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn’s disease.

After a month

“If stress goes on for a month, that’s constant activation of the stress response,” Dr Hasan says. “Your blood pressure may now be chronically elevated, which is setting the stage for hypertension.” This level of prolonged inflammation is likely to provoke flare ups if you’ve got an already underlying inflammatory condition like arthritis or colitis, she says, while “your chronic muscle tension is now going to lead to back pain and reduced exercise tolerance. When it’s impacting something that can positively impact your stress, then it’s a vicious cycle.” Elsewhere in the body, elevated levels of stress hormones over weeks and months can disrupt the production of other hormones in the body, leading to potential interference with sperm production and erectile dysfunction or impotence in men, or delays of the menstrual cycle or other fertility processes. And the impact on your sleep will be compounding into fatigue which will exacerbate other psychological effects.

How to combat it

“The brain starts changing already and hippocampal atrophy begins which affects our memory,” says Kober. She adds that the prefrontal cortex can shrink under prolonged stress – meaning we are less flexible, more impulsive, and more prone to rumination and negative self-focus. “When we’re ruminating and losing focus, we’re forgetting about our basic needs and what actually used to work for us.” Sleep, relaxation and nutrition can all fall by the wayside, meaning we can reach for the more comforting, less nutritious options. This is exacerbated by the gut response to stress, Dr Hasan says. “When stress is prolonged, even just by a week, it will begin to alter your gut microbiome which is going to impact both immunity and nutrient absorption, and also increase your cravings for the wrong foods – high fat, sugary foods.” How to combat it: While some stress is unavoidable, it’s important to identify the cause of it and seek ways to alleviate it. Experts recommend setting boundaries with colleagues or friends, and being realistic about your limits.

After a year or more

“Chronic stress increases what I would consider serious health problems,” Dr Hasan says. “Your risk of cardiovascular disease, heart disease, stroke, type two diabetes will increase, and that risk for stroke or heart attack is conflated if you’ve got type two diabetes.” One US study of more than 5,000 adults found that stress ages the immune system – researchers said unhealthy habits associated with stress such as smoking, drinking, and a bad diet played a part in this. Prolonged strain on the musculoskeletal system becomes much harder to recover from, leading to constant aches and pains and less motivation or ability to exercise/stretch to fix them. In the digestive system “when things become chronic, it can also manifest as gastric ulcers: stomach ulcers or persistent bowel inflammation. That puts you at increased risk of other bowel conditions as well”

Effects on cognitive function



A 2023 study of 24,000 people aged 45 and over found that people with chronic, elevated stress were 37 per cent more likely to have poor cognitive function. “Chronic stress for a year or more accelerates brain aging and increases risk of Alzheimer’s or dementia,” says Kober. “It reduces the grey matter in the brain, there’s shortening in brain cells, meaning that the cells are aging much faster, and it affects our cognitive impairment. We know that years of prolonged exposure to stress hormones is associated with accelerated aging, reduced resilience, and a greater likelihood of chronic diseases across the spectrum,” Dr Hasan adds. “Structural, functional brain changes might contribute to mood disorders like depression and anxiety. The persistent inflammation raises our risk of cancers, neurodegenerative diseases like dementia and frailty.”

How to combat it



Once stress becomes chronic it can be harder, but not impossible, to recover from the impacts on the body and mind. One of the best things you can do to lower inflammation from stress is to exercise. It can reduce your levels of stress hormones, and by getting your heart rate up you will also counter the impact of stress on your cardiovascular system. A healthy diet and good sleep pattern are also vital, along with psychoeducation – learning about mental health and wellbeing. Increasing research shows that loneliness is one of the most dangerous forms of chronic stress, and ages the brain and body. Seek positive ways to connect with people in real life. Take a look at your working hours, too: in 2021, a study in the journal Environment International showed people working more than 54 hours a week are at significant risk of dying from strokes and heart attacks. 

Trump emerges as 'leading contender' to win 2026 Nobel Peace Prize

 



A UK betting company, William Hill, has named US president Donald Trump as the “leading contender” to win the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, despite the ongoing conflict with Iran that commenced on 28 February.

Trump's current odds are 3/1, representing a 25 per cent chance, which is a decrease from the 55 per cent chance quoted by the bookmaker late last year.

Last year, Trump was overlooked for the award in favour of Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado, who subsequently presented her prize to him in January.

Several international leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, have publicly stated they nominated Trump for the prestigious award - the annual deadline for nominations is January 31.

Trump has expressed a desire to be recognized as a “great peacemaker” and has controversially claimed that if he does not receive the Nobel Peace Prize, then “nobody will ever get it”.


Trump was overlooked by the committee last year in favor of Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado, but we now price the U.S. President at 3/1 to claim the 2026 prize – a 25 percent chance. That is a longer price than we quoted late last year, when we rated Trump’s chances at 55 percent,” he added.

Trump has long claimed that he deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and his allies complained after last year’s award went to Machado. In January, she presented her prize to Trump, who called the offer “such a wonderful gesture of mutual respect.”

everal world leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, have said they nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The annual deadline for nominations is January 31.

Trump has “no idea” if the war with Iran will “get him over the finish line” with the Nobel Committee, he told the Washington Examiner on March 12.

“I don’t know. I’m not interested in it,” he said.

But about two weeks later, the president claimed that if he doesn’t secure the prize, nobody will.

“If I don't get the Nobel Prize for peace, nobody will ever get it. I didn't get it. I'm not surprised. The person that got it was shocked — she’s a wonderful woman too, by the way,” he said at an investment event in Miami, Florida.

The president also said he wants to be known as a “great peacemaker.”

“I know it doesn't sound right for me to say this, but I'd love my legacy to be made as a great peacemaker, because I really believe I’m a peacemaker. It doesn’t seem it right now, but I think I'm a peacemaker,” he added.



There are 287 nominees for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, including 208 individuals and 79 organizations, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced Thursday.

“The number of nominations remains consistently high, reflecting the robust global interest in the Nobel Peace Prize. In an increasingly conflictual world, there is no lack of candidates whose principled commitment and innovative action points towards a brighter future,” the organization said in a statement.

Putin powerless as China tightens grip on occupied Ukraine




Moscow has grown increasingly dependent on China for investment, trade and technological support as Western sanctions continue to strain Russia’s economy.

That reliance is now shaping developments far beyond Russia’s borders.
Quiet expansion

According to The Insider cited by Onet, China is steadily increasing its presence in occupied areas of eastern Ukraine, particularly in Donbas.

A report by the Eastern Human Rights Group found around 6,000 mobile base stations in these territories rely on Chinese technology.

At the same time, about 80 bank branches now offer transactions in yuan, signaling deeper financial integration.

Beijing has not formally recognized Russia’s control over Crimea or other occupied regions.

However, business ties continue to develop through indirect channels, with delegations and trade links quietly expanding.

Local authorities have also pursued partnerships with Chinese firms under the banner of “import substitution”, while China avoids breaching Western sanctions.

Projects on ground
Chinese companies have become involved in infrastructure and industrial activity across the occupied territories.

One example is a quarry in Donetsk region, where agreements were signed with firms supplying mining equipment.

According to Donbas-based journalists cited by The Insider, Chinese machinery is also being used in key mining operations in Luhansk.

Experts say Russia’s ability to rebuild occupied areas increasingly depends on Chinese funding and support.

“The reconstruction of the industry under occupation is already being financed with Chinese money. Without China, Russia has no way to quickly rebuild all of this,”

This cooperation often takes place through intermediaries, including private firms and individuals operating between the two countries.

Are Seed Oils Bad for You? New Research Reveals the Truth




 For a while now, claims have been floating around the internet highlighting the ‘health risks’ of seed oils. Such oils include kitchen mainstays like rapeseed oil and sunflower oil (most vegetable oils are seed oils), which are generally rich in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Although omega-6 fatty acids are essential for the body, some critics have argued that elevated levels can lead to inflammation, which, in turn, can increase your risk of certain diseases, including heart disease, obesity, and cancer.

Why Do Some People Think Seed Oils Cause Inflammation?

The argument that seed oils can cause inflammation comes from the way they are metabolised in the body. Omega-6 fatty acids – particularly linoleic acid (found in seed oils) – are converted into arachidonic acid by our body. When the body needs to respond to an event, for example, an injury or infection, arachidonic acid is converted into a type of signalling molecule (a tiny chemical messenger), which may promote inflammation to help deal with the injury/infection.

It’s a normal immune response, but it could potentially be harmful if chronically elevated over time. Some researchers have argued that the issue lies in the ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s (which tend to produce anti-inflammatory compounds). In other words, if somebody is consuming too much omega-6 compared to omega-3 through their diet.

However, new research presented at the American Society for Nutrition’s recent annual meeting has challenged this school of thought entirely, suggesting that omega-6 fatty acids found in seed oils may reduce inflammation and support cardiometabolic health.

What Did the Study Find?

Based on a study of almost 1,900 people, the researchers found that higher levels of linoleic acid in blood plasma were associated with lower levels of biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk, including those related to inflammation.

While several observational studies have already shown higher intake of linoleic acid to be associated with lower risks for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events (like heart attacks and strokes), this new study employed more robust methods. Researchers used objective biomarkers rather than diet records or food frequency questionnaires to assess linoleic acid intake, making the results more reliable.

The researchers found that those with higher linoleic acid showed lower levels of glucose and insulin, as well as something called HOMA-IR, which is a biomarker of insulin resistance. They also had lower levels of inflammation biomarkers, including C-reactive protein, glycoprotein acetyls, and serum amyloid A.

In layman’s terms, ‘their blood tended to have a healthier overall risk profile for heart disease and diabetes,’ the researchers explain.

Butter or Oil – Which is Best?

These findings are supported by another recent large-scale study of 221,054 adults, which compared the effects of butter with plant-based oils. The study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that higher butter intake was associated with increased total and cancer mortality. Conversely, higher intake of plant-based oils was associated with lower total, cancer, and cardiovascular disease mortality.

Those who ate the most butter had a 15% higher risk of dying during the study’s follow-up than those who had the least butter, while those who consumed the most plant oils had a 16% lower risk of dying during the study’s follow-up than those who consumed the least.

Based on further calculations, the researchers conclude that swapping 10g of butter per day with an equivalent amount of plant-based oils is linked to an estimated 17% reduction in total mortality and 17% reduction in cancer mortality.

The Bottom line

This isn’t to say you need to go on a butter rampage and rid your fridge of all the evidence. Certainly not when a tub of the good stuff is so pricey these days. No – it’s simply about moderation. It’s probably not a good idea to slather everything in oil either.

We know we say it all the time, but as long as you’re consuming something as part of a balanced diet, there’s likely very little risk involved. Perhaps if you have a lot of butter, it might be worth cutting down and using plant-based oils for cooking instead. However, as long as you are consuming butter and oil in moderation, you should be alright.

It’s more about challenging the messaging that something is inherently unhealthy. There’s almost always nuance involved.

Next time you see somebody slating seed oils, you’ll have the information and evidence to take their claims with more than a pinch of salt.

Your birth order could be affecting your health, according to a new study


Birth order has always been one of those things people argue about in families.


There’s the responsible eldest, the overlooked middle child, the carefree youngest… you get the picture. However, a huge new study suggests there may be something more going on, with researchers finding links between birth order and the risk of a wide range of health conditions, including autism, allergies, migraines, and gut problems.

That doesn’t mean your place in the family decides your future. What it does mean is that researchers are starting to spot patterns that could help explain how early life experiences shape health in ways we didn’t fully understand before.

This is one of the largest birth-order studies ever carried out.



The research looked at data from more than 10 million siblings, making it far bigger than most previous studies on the topic. Instead of focusing on one condition at a time, it examined a wide range of health outcomes across the population.

That scale matters because it gives the findings more weight. Earlier research often relied on smaller groups or focused on narrow questions, which made it easier for bold claims to get ahead of the evidence and see the bigger picture.

Firstborn children showed higher risk for some conditions.



One of the clearest patterns was that firstborn children appeared to have a higher risk of certain neurodevelopmental and immune-related conditions. That includes things like autism and some allergic conditions.

It’s important to keep this in context, of course. This doesn’t mean most firstborn children will develop these conditions. It simply means that across a very large group, the risk was slightly higher compared to their younger siblings.

Later-born siblings had different risks, not fewer.



The study didn’t find that younger siblings were simply better off overall. Instead, they tended to show higher risk in different areas, including issues linked to gut health and substance use later in life. That suggests this isn’t a simple ranking system where one birth position is “better” than another. It’s more about different patterns of risk that change depending on where someone falls in the family.

The autism link has been seen before, but this adds weight to it.



Previous research has already suggested that firstborn children may have a slightly higher risk of autism compared to later-born siblings. What this new study does is show that the same pattern appears even when looking at a much larger population. That doesn’t explain why it happens, but it does suggest there’s something consistent enough for researchers to keep investigating rather than dismissing it as coincidence.

The findings go beyond one or two conditions.



What makes this study stand out is how wide-ranging the results are. It’s not just about autism or one specific illness. The patterns showed up across multiple types of health conditions, including things like migraines and digestive issues, which makes the findings feel broader and more complex than the usual birth-order theories people are used to hearing.

There are likely multiple reasons behind these patterns.



Researchers don’t think there’s one simple explanation. Instead, it’s likely a mix of biological and environmental factors that change slightly with each child. This could be everything from differences between pregnancies to changes in the mother’s body over time, or even how family life evolves once there’s already a child in the home.

Family dynamics may also play a role.



Beyond biology, there are everyday differences in how children are raised depending on when they arrive. Firstborn children often get more one-to-one attention early on, while later-born children grow up in a busier environment. The changes in attention, routine, and even exposure to things like infections could all contribute in small ways that add up over time.

This doesn’t mean parents are doing anything wrong.



It’s easy for research like this to feel personal, but it’s not about blaming families or suggesting anyone has made a mistake. These are patterns seen across millions of people, not individual stories. Health outcomes are shaped by a wide mix of factors, including genetics, environment, and chance. Birth order may be one piece of that puzzle, but it’s far from the whole picture.

The research still needs to be reviewed further.



Another important point is that the study has been released as a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet gone through full peer review. That doesn’t make it unreliable, but it does mean the findings could still be refined. As with any large study, other researchers will look closely at the methods and conclusions before anything is considered settled.

This isn’t proof of the old birth-order stereotypes.



It’s tempting to connect this kind of research to familiar ideas about personality, like eldest children being more responsible or youngest siblings being more relaxed. However, this study isn’t about personality traits. It’s about patterns in health risk across large groups, which is a much more specific and less dramatic finding.

The bigger picture is about early life influences.



What this research really highlights is how much early life can shape long-term health. A child doesn’t grow up in isolation, they grow up within a family that changes over time. Each new child arrives into a slightly different environment, and those small differences may leave a subtle mark that shows up later in life.