Category: 8. Health

New York, Sept. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — This release is for informational purposes only. GLPro Blood Sugar Supplement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before starting any supplement. Some links may be promotional and generate compensation for the publisher without affecting consumer cost.

Introducing GLPro Blood Sugar Supplement

Across social platforms, health-related forums, and consumer search reports, 2025 is witnessing a surge in interest around supplements designed to support daily energy, balance, and vitality. The GLPro Blood Sugar Supplement has entered this spotlight as part of the cultural moment, frequently mentioned in discussions ranging from TikTok wellness challenges to Reddit debates about transparency in supplement design.

This isn’t about prescriptive advice. It’s about a wider cultural shift where consumers are taking the lead in their wellness decisions. They are searching for supplements framed as transparent, U.S.-made, and designed to match modern expectations of simplicity and clarity. GLPro is part of this narrative, showing how the supplement market is evolving to meet public curiosity.

TL;DR: GLPro Blood Sugar Supplement is one of 2025’s top trending formulas, not because of unverified claims, but because it reflects the wider shift toward clean-label, transparent, and ingredient-first supplement design.

Key Points Covered in This Release

• Rising consumer interest in blood sugar supplements during 2025
• GLPro Blood Sugar Supplement’s positioning as an ingredient-first formula
• How online conversations are shaping public curiosity
• The audiences most often associated with this category
• Broader wellness market trends emphasizing self-guided routines
• Public debate surrounding transparency and supplement expectations

Visit the Official GLPro Site to View Current Offers

WHY INTEREST IN BLOOD SUGAR SUPPLEMENTS IS SURGING IN 2025

Consumer search patterns tell a clear story in 2025. Interest in blood sugar supplements has spiked dramatically across Google, TikTok, and wellness forums. According to aggregated search analysis, terms like “blood sugar support supplement,” “natural glucose balance,” and “#1 blood sugar formula” are climbing month after month.

This surge is tied to broader lifestyle conversations. Consumers are increasingly aware of how energy fluctuations, diet choices, and daily habits influence their sense of balance. Rather than relying solely on prescriptive guidance, many are exploring supplements framed as transparent and natural.

On TikTok, hashtags connected to “glucose hacks” and “morning energy resets” have reached millions of views. Creators document 30-day challenges and share personal curiosity about supplements that align with these routines. On Reddit, entire threads dissect new product launches, with discussions centered less on guarantees and more on ingredient lists, sourcing claims, and whether formulas are positioned as trustworthy.

GLPro surfaces in these conversations frequently, not as a promoted review, but as a formula people name when discussing what’s trending. Its appearance reflects how consumers are measuring supplement credibility: by transparency, presentation, and clean-label emphasis.

GLPRO’S INGREDIENT-FIRST RESPONSE TO MARKET CURIOSITY

Consumers in 2025 want clarity. The supplement industry has historically leaned on vague blends and bold promises, but today’s buyers are asking sharper questions. What’s in the bottle? Where are the ingredients sourced? What is intentionally excluded?

GLPro positions itself in response to this demand. Its narrative is built around ingredient-first framing. Instead of relying on exaggerated claims, it emphasizes openness and clean-label principles. The formula is marketed with an emphasis on what consumers say they care about most: transparency, sourcing standards, and simplicity.

This approach aligns GLPro with the fastest-growing subcategory of supplements in 2025 — those designed not to overpromise, but to give consumers a sense of confidence through clarity.

FORMULATION TRANSPARENCY – WHAT CONSUMERS EXPECT IN 2025

Transparency has become the cornerstone of supplement trust. In surveys and consumer forums, buyers consistently highlight three concerns: hidden additives, confusing labels, and lack of clear sourcing information.

GLPro’s presence in the market addresses this shift. Its official positioning emphasizes U.S.-based production and premium global ingredient sourcing. While the specifics are detailed on the brand’s website, the overarching message is clear: consumers want honesty, and brands that deliver it earn attention.

This trend extends beyond GLPro. Across the industry, clean-label supplements are being discussed as the new baseline for credibility. In an age of instant online research, consumers can compare labels, call out discrepancies, and debate sourcing in real time. Brands like GLPro are shaping their message to align with this climate, showing that openness is no longer optional but expected.

WHAT REDDIT, PODCASTS & TIKTOK CREATORS ARE SAYING

Cultural conversations about supplements are no longer led by medical journals or advertising campaigns. Instead, TikTok challenges, Reddit debates, and podcasts drive the narrative.

On TikTok, wellness influencers discuss morning rituals and energy-focused hacks. Hashtags such as “blood sugar reset” and “daily energy support” trend weekly, with videos garnering millions of engagements. While creators avoid prescriptive claims, their curiosity around supplement categories drives audience interest.

Podcasts add another dimension. Long-form discussions explore why consumers are seeking out supplements, what cultural anxieties drive this demand, and how brands are responding to a generation skeptical of traditional advertising.

Reddit threads are perhaps the most raw. Anonymous users debate transparency, price points, and brand trustworthiness. GLPro surfaces in these debates not as an endorsed product, but as an example of the types of formulas being evaluated. Its name appears in threads about “which supplements feel transparent” or “which glucose products are trending right now.”

By appearing within these conversations, GLPro benefits from the halo of consumer-driven curiosity.

Explore the Full GLPro Blood Sugar Support Formula

WHO MIGHT BE DRAWN TO GLPRO IN 2025

The conversation around GLPro spans diverse audiences, united less by demographics and more by mindset.

• Biohackers see supplements like GLPro as part of a toolkit to experiment with routines, often stacking it alongside sleep tracking, intermittent fasting, or mindfulness practices.
• Preparedness communities value supplements positioned as reliable, clean, and U.S.-produced. For these groups, GLPro represents a product that aligns with resilience-focused lifestyles.
• Mainstream consumers are less extreme but equally curious. They are searching for supplements that fit into their daily routines without making exaggerated promises. For them, GLPro stands out because it communicates transparency in a cluttered marketplace.

Each of these mindsets is represented in the online conversations that shape supplement culture. The result is a multifaceted audience evaluating GLPro from different angles, yet converging on the same themes of clarity and transparency.

BROADER MARKET REFLECTIONS – SELF-GUIDED WELLNESS TRENDS

The GLPro story reflects something larger happening in wellness: the rise of self-guided routines. Consumers are no longer waiting for top-down advice before exploring new products. They are forming their own opinions based on research, online discussions, and peer recommendations.

This shift is transforming the supplement market. Brands are now evaluated not only on what they claim, but on how they communicate, how they disclose, and how they align with consumer expectations. GLPro’s emphasis on transparency positions it squarely within this new reality.

Industry observers describe this as the democratization of wellness. Consumers feel empowered to research, experiment, and share experiences online. In this environment, brands that fail to align with expectations are quickly called out. GLPro’s alignment with transparency and ingredient-first communication helps it stand out in this evolving marketplace.

THE PUBLIC DEBATE – SIGNALS, SKEPTICISM, AND SATURATION

No supplement trend is complete without debate. Public conversations around blood sugar supplements illustrate three core viewpoints.

• Positive Voices emphasize the value of consumers taking control of their routines. They see supplements like GLPro as signs of an empowered population seeking clarity.
• Skeptical Voices question whether supplements deliver meaningful outcomes. They frame products as cultural artifacts — more about marketing than substance.
• Neutral Observers view the trend as part of a recurring cycle where public curiosity spikes, brands respond, and debates follow.

GLPro is consistently present in these debates. It is not presented as the solution, but as an example of how the market is adapting to new consumer expectations. Its role in this debate ensures it remains part of the broader cultural conversation.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF BLOOD SUGAR SUPPLEMENT TRENDS

The public interest in supplements positioned around blood sugar is not unique to 2025. Over the last decade, online communities have repeatedly highlighted products marketed for energy, lifestyle balance, or metabolic curiosity.

In 2010, early “sugar balance” supplements appeared in online stores, often criticized for vague claims. By 2015, consumer watchdogs began pushing for clearer labeling, which set the stage for today’s demand for transparency. By 2020, TikTok and Instagram wellness influencers had shifted conversations from diet fads toward supplement experimentation.

GLPro’s arrival in 2025 is part of this continuum. It reflects the new rules of supplement credibility: ingredient-first framing, visible sourcing, and clean-label commitments. Consumers familiar with earlier supplement cycles now demand more accountability, and GLPro positions itself accordingly.

GLOBAL MARKET OUTLOOK FOR 2025–2026

The global wellness and supplement industry continues to expand, with market analysts projecting billions of dollars in annual consumer spending. Reports note that supplements linked to energy balance, glucose awareness, and lifestyle optimization represent one of the fastest-growing subcategories.

This expansion is not driven by medical endorsements but by consumer demand. Individuals are seeking autonomy, transparency, and product accessibility. GLPro is part of this growth story — not as a prescriptive solution, but as an example of how brands are adapting to new expectations.

The momentum behind supplement transparency is expected to intensify in 2026, as more consumers use search engines and social platforms to evaluate products before making decisions. GLPro’s positioning around openness and clean formulation aligns with where the industry is heading.

CONSUMER FAQS – QUESTIONS DRIVING CURIOSITY IN 2025

Why are people searching for blood sugar supplements in 2025?

Because conversations about energy, daily balance, and wellness routines are trending across platforms. Consumers are exploring supplements as part of self-guided experimentation.

What makes transparency important in supplements today?

Online communities demand clarity. In 2025, consumers expect to see clear ingredient disclosures and sourcing standards. Brands like GLPro earn attention because they frame transparency as central to their identity.

Where can consumers find official information about GLPro?

The official GLPro website remains the primary resource for accurate details on formulation, pricing, and refund policies. Consumers are encouraged to review information directly at the source.

Visit the Official GLPro Site to View Current Offers

ABOUT GLPRO

GLPro Blood Sugar Supplement is framed as a U.S.-produced formula designed with transparency in mind. Its market positioning highlights ingredient clarity, sourcing standards, and consumer-first communication. While avoiding medical claims, GLPro emphasizes its role in the broader movement toward clean-label, transparent supplement design.

CONTACT

FINAL DISCLAIMER

This press release is for informational purposes only. The information contained herein does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment and has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). GLPro Blood Sugar Supplement is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Always consult your physician or qualified healthcare provider before beginning any new supplement, routine, or health program.

Some links in this release may be promotional in nature and may lead to third-party websites. The publisher or author may receive compensation through affiliate commissions if a purchase is made through these links. This compensation does not affect the price you pay and helps support continued research and content publication. Results described or implied may not be typical and should not be interpreted as guarantees.

Statements made about ingredients or outcomes reflect public discussion and historical usage only, and are not endorsed by medical professionals or regulatory agencies. Always do your own research and make informed decisions.

A new analysis comparing different dementia care approaches found that caregivers of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias reported greater satisfaction with care provided through either of two comprehensive dementia care programs, compared with routine (usual) care, over an 18-month period.

The Dementia Care Study, also known as D-CARE, compared three different approaches to delivering dementia care: a health system-based program, a community-based program, and usual care. The trial included 2,176 persons with dementia and their caregivers and was conducted from June 2019 to August 2023. The study’s primary findings, previously published in JAMA, showed no differences in patient behavioral symptoms or caregiver strain, depression, or distress between dementia care approaches; but did show improved caregiver self-efficacy (confidence in ability to care for their loved ones).

Additional analysis in the new report, published September 2 in JAMA Internal Medicine, found no significant differences between the health system-based and community-based groups in other clinical outcomes for people living with dementia, such as cognition, ability to perform daily activities, and quality of life. Similarly, caregiver outcomes – such as caregiver burden and positive aspects of caregiving – were comparable across all groups. 

However, caregiver satisfaction with care — a measurement of caregivers’ satisfaction with the dementia care their loved ones received — was greater in both the health-system and community-based care approaches than in those receiving usual care. Higher caregiver satisfaction with care was observed after 3 months of care delivery and remained consistent throughout the 18-month study. Caregivers in the community-based program reported slightly more satisfaction overall.

In addition, caregiver rating of dementia care quality — a measure of how well caregivers felt the care team communicated, coordinated services, provided support, and met the needs of both patients and families — was reported to be slightly higher in the community-based dementia care program compared to usual care.

“These findings give us a closer look at what matters most to families,” said Dr. David Reuben, Archstone Professor of Geriatrics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and principal investigator of the D-CARE study. “Even when standardized clinical outcomes do not change, caregivers notice and value improvements in the way dementia care is delivered. That kind of support can make a real difference in their experience of caring for a loved one with dementia.”

D-CARE was led by investigators at University of California, Los Angeles, with data management and statistics performed by the Yale Data Coordinating Center and was conducted at four clinical sites: Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Baylor Scott & White Health, the University of Texas Medical Branch, and Geisinger Health. The study was supported by investigators at the Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and RAND. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: health care system-based care delivered by Dementia Care Specialists (based on the UCLA Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care Program), community-based organization-based care delivered by Care Consultants (utilizing Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging Care Consultation Program), or usual care. 

The D-CARE trial was designed to provide real-world evidence on the effectiveness of dementia care delivery models at a time when health systems, policymakers, and payers are seeking scalable approaches to support the growing population of people with dementia and their caregivers. The study’s findings underscore the importance of evaluating caregiver perspectives in addition to traditional health outcomes and point toward future opportunities to refine dementia care models. 

“These additional findings build on the initial findings of the D-CARE trial by showing that, even without measurable changes in clinical outcomes, caregivers perceive real benefits in how care is delivered,” Reuben said. “These findings can inform policy and programs, particularly Medicare’s Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) model, by showing that caregivers’ satisfaction is an important factor to be considered when designing a high-quality dementia program.”

The study will also examine the effects of the dementia programs on health care utilization.

The D-CARE study is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCS-2017C1-6534), a nonprofit institution, and the National Institute on Aging (R01 AG061078). The awards include four clinical trial sites. Additional support was provided by the Yale Program on Aging/Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (P30AG021342), The National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (UL1 TR000142), The Mexican Health and Aging Study (R01AG018016), The UTMB Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC) (P30 AG024832), The Dewey and Cynthia Robertson Fund for Wake Forest Geriatrics and the Wake Forest Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (P30 AG049638).

For these people, regardless of what state they are in, getting the vaccine would mean a pharmacist or doctor would have to go “off-label” to provide it.

“It’s very gray on how a pharmacist may proceed in that scenario,” Groves told Ars. Going off-label could open pharmacists up to liability concerns, she said. And even if a patient can obtain a prescription for an off-label vaccine, that still may not be enough to allow a pharmacist to administer the vaccine.

“Pharmacists have something called ‘corresponding responsibility,’ Groves explained. “So even if a physician, or a nurse practitioner, or whomever may send a prescription over for that vaccine, that pharmacist still has that responsibility to ensure this is the right medication, for the right patient, at the right time, and that they’re indicated for it,” she said. So, it would still be going outside what they’re technically authorized to do.

Doctors, on the other hand, can administer vaccines off-label, which they might do if they choose to follow guidance from medical organizations like AAP and ACOG, or if they think it’s best for their patient. They can do this without any heightened professional liability, contrary to some suggestions Kennedy has made (doctors prescribe things off-label all the time). But, people may have to schedule an appointment with their doctor and convince them to provide the shot—a situation far less convenient than strolling into a local pharmacy. Also, since pharmacies have provided the vast majority of COVID-19 vaccines so far, some doctors’ offices may not have them on hand.

Pregnancy

It’s unclear if pregnancy still falls under the FDA’s criteria for a high-risk condition. It was included in the list that FDA officials published in May. However, the agency did not make that list official when it changed the vaccine labels last month. Some experts have suggested that, in this case, the qualifying high-risk conditions default to the CDC’s existing list of high-risk conditions, which includes pregnancy. But it’s not entirely clear.

Walking frequently is linked to reduced back pain, and it’s the total amount of walking that matters most, not how intense it is.

A large research effort examined how daily walking relates to the likelihood of developing chronic lower back problems. If people adopt the simple guidance that emerges, the approach could ease back pain for many and reduce costs for healthcare systems.

The results are clear: people who walk more tend to have fewer lower back issues, and total time on foot matters more than speed or intensity. In practical terms, walking longer is more beneficial than walking faster.

“People who walk more than 100 minutes every day have a 23 per cent lower risk of lower back problems than those who walk 78 minutes or less,” said Rayane Haddadj.

He is a PhD candidate at the Department of Public Health and Nursing at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), and is part of a research group that specifically studies musculoskeletal disorders.

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open and have already drawn significant attention.

Even leisurely strolls are beneficial

It probably comes as no surprise that physical activity is good for your back, but until now, we have not actually known whether the amount of low-intensity walking we do also helps.

“Intensity also plays a role in the risk of long-term back problems, but not as much as the daily amount of walking,” emphasized Haddadj.

A total of 11,194 people participated in the study, which is part of the Trøndelag Health Study (The HUNT Study). What makes this study unique is that the volume and intensity of daily walking were measured using two sensors that participants wore on their thighs and back for up to a week.

The results may be important in relation to preventing chronic back problems. Until now, there has been little research on the prevention of these types of musculoskeletal problems. It is well known that physical activity can prevent a wide range of illnesses and ailments. This study is important because it confirms that physical activity, and especially daily walking, can help prevent long-term lower back problems.

Back pain is a very common ailment

“The findings highlight the importance of finding time to be physically active – to prevent both chronic back problems and a number of other diseases. Over time, this could lead to major savings for society,” said Paul Jarle Mork, a professor at NTNU’s Department of Public Health and Nursing.

Back and neck problems cost society several billion kroner every year. Musculoskeletal disorders are likely the largest expense within the Norwegian healthcare system.

Back pain is one of the most common health problems in Norway. Depending on what you include, between 60 and 80 per cent of us will experience back problems at some point in our lives. At any given time, around one in five Norwegians has back trouble.

The causes are many and complex, but the solution might be as simple as putting on your shoes and going for a walk – each and every day.

Reference: “Volume and Intensity of Walking and Risk of Chronic Low Back Pain” by Rayane Haddadj, Anne Lovise Nordstoga, Tom Ivar Lund Nilsen, Eivind Schjelderup Skarpsno, Atle Kongsvold, Mats Flaaten, Jasper Schipperijn, Kerstin Bach and Paul Jarle Mork, 13 June 2025, JAMA Network Open.
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.15592

Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Individuals with atopic dermatitis who initiate systemic Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors are not at greater risk of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer compared to those initiating interleukin (IL)-4 or IL-13 inhibitors, recent data suggest.¹

These data comparing rates of risk between these 2 patient groups were the result of a recent study authored by investigators such as Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, a clinical senior lecturer and consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester’s Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.

Zhao and colleagues highlighted the well-known efficacy of JAK inhibitors (JAKi) for patients living with atopic dermatitis. They added, however, that cardiovascular and cancer risk concerns have remained persistent, given a prior study pointing to increased risk among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).²

“While the RA and [atopic dermatitis] populations likely differ, [atopic dermatitis] is independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer compared with the general population,” Zhao and coauthors wrote.^1,3 “We aimed to compare the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer between individuals starting systemic JAKi versus IL-4/-13 inhibitors (IL-4/-13i).”

The investigative team used electronic health record data from healthcare systems primarily located in North America to conduct this cohort study. Those deemed eligible to be participants were required to be adults aged ≥18 years and to have an ICD-10 diagnosis code for atopic dermatitis. They also had to have initiated treatment with either a JAKi such as upadacitinib, tofacitinib, or abrocitinib or to have initiated an IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor such as lebrikizumab, dupilumab, or tralokinumab.

The main outcomes Zhao et al assessed were the occurrence of coronary artery disease or stroke, and the incidence of any form of cancer among patients. In their evaluation of secondary endpoints, outcomes included coronary artery disease alone, skin cancer, stroke alone, and 2 control outcomes—herpes zoster and conjunctivitis.

The investigative team applied 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched Cox proportional hazards models to draw comparisons of time-to-event outcomes between treatment cohorts in their analysis. Zhao and colleagues included matching variables such as participants’ sex, age at initiation of treatment, sex, and ethnicity. The team assessed other covariates within the 12 months before initiation of these medications, including C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, ischemic heart disease, body mass index (BMI), cerebrovascular disease, cardiovascular risk factors, proxies for atopic dermatitis severity, and cancer history.

Zhao and coauthors’ follow-up period continued until the last available record or the conclusion of the study period, whichever occurred first. Individuals involved in the analysis who shifted to 1 drug from another treatment class during follow-up were not included. The analyses were repeated for 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up intervals, with investigators hoping to address potential differences in exposure duration. They also conducted sensitivity analyses, excluding participants who reported a prior history of the outcome of interest. They would also remove events that took place within the first month of follow-up to limit reverse causation.

In total, there were 1978 subjects who began using a JAK inhibitor and were successfully matched to 1978 IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor initiators. Mean follow-up duration was shown by the investigative team to have been slightly longer for IL-4/IL-13 inhibitor users (e.g., 291 days versus 264 days at the 1-year timepoint). All covariates at the point of baseline were well-balanced across the different cohorts of patients. Overall, the team found no statistically significant differences observed between drug classes in risk of any cancers (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.60–1.08), cardiovascular events (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.78–2.56), or skin cancers specifically (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.61–1.89).¹

Zhao et al’s findings in this study were consistent across 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up periods and across their sensitivity analyses. However, JAKi therapy was linked with a decreased risk of conjunctivitis and an increased risk of herpes zoster. Nevertheless, this large real-world study’s findings indicate that, among adult patients with atopic dermatitis, JAK inhibitors do not appear to raise their risk of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer when compared with IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors.¹

Such conclusions may allow for reassurance among patients and clinicians, and the findings were consistent with both atopic dermatitis clinical trial data and previous observational research in RA. The investigators did acknowledge, however, the relatively limited number of outcome events and the consequent constraint on the data’s statistical power, highlighting the value of continued monitoring and replication in future studies.

“The main limitation is the inability to accurately ascertain the drug cessation date using administrative data and the differences in follow-up time between exposure groups,” Zhao et al concluded.¹ “However, results were similar across different durations of follow-up. As with all observational studies, residual confounding may bias our results. Nonetheless, reassurance comes from using IL-4/-13i as an active comparator and from the use of control outcomes.”

References

1. Zhao SS, Hernandez G, Alam U. Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer in Patients Initiating JAK Versus IL-4/-13 Inhibitors for Atopic Dermatitis. Int J Dermatol. 2025 Apr 28. doi: 10.1111/ijd.17815. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 40293104. Accessed September 5, 2025.

2. Ytterberg SR, Bhatt DL, Mikuls TR, Connell CA, et al; ORAL Surveillance Investigators. Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2022 Jan 27;386(4):316-326. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109927. PMID: 35081280. Accessed September 5, 2025.

3. Silverwood RJ, Forbes HJ, Langan SM, et al. Severe and predominantly active atopic eczema in adulthood and long term risk of cardiovascular disease: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2018 May 23;361:k1786. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1786. PMID: 29792314; PMCID: PMC6190010. Accessed September 5, 2025.