Eating lots of trans fats found in fried food, cakes and biscuits 'could put you at greater risk of getting dementia'

The usual deficient control. When medical researchers categorize people they almost always show zero interest in how the categorized people got into their category.  Much is missed because of that.

In this case I don't know much about Japanese sociology but I don't think I am drawing too long a bow to suggest that keen eaters of the deplored foods were predominantly poor people. Poor people are very "incorrect" eaters generally.  And poor people are regularly found to have worse health of all sorts. So the demented people observed may have been demented because they were poor, not because of what they ate

So the research is, as usual, totally inconclusive.  It proves nothing


Fatty acids found in baked goods and takeaways may put people at greater risk of dementia.

Trans fats, which are used to make cakes, biscuits, margarine and fried food, are not banned in the UK, although they are not commonly used.

Japanese researchers have now linked these fats to dementia, in a study of more than 1,600 people over 60.

Estimating people's consumption of trans fats using blood tests, they found those with the highest levels in their body were 52 per cent more likely to get dementia.

Evidence suggests trans fats may cause harmful inflammation and the build-up of a protein called amyloid, which are both linked to dementia.

The findings, published in the journal Neurology, come three years after the Government scrapped a proposed ban on trans fats in its watered-down child obesity strategy of 2016.

Scientists said the previous year that a ban on the fats, which come from partially hydrogenated plant oils, could save 7,200 lives in England from coronary heart disease over five years.

Dr Toshiharu Ninomiya, senior author of the Japanese study, from Kyushu University in Japan, said: 'The World Health Organisation has called for trans fats to be eliminated worldwide by 2023.

'These public health efforts have the potential to help prevent dementia cases around the world, not to mention the decrease in heart disease and other conditions related to trans fats.' While trans fats occur naturally in dairy products like cheese and cream, they are also found in takeaways where vegetable oils have been heated to fry foods at high temperatures.

The fats can improve the taste and shelf life of processed foods and are also used by some manufacturers in pies, biscuits and cakes.

Although they were banned in the US last year, they continue to be present in British food, although health experts say UK intakes are much lower than the recommended maximum.

The Japanese study involved 1,628 people living in a Japanese community who did not have dementia and had an average age of 70.

They were divided into four groups based on levels of elaidic acid in their blood, which is often used to measure the amount of trans fats people have consumed.

Followed up for 10 years on average, people with the group thought to consume the most trans fats were 52 per cent more likely to get dementia than those who consumed the least.

Of the 407 people with the highest level, 104 developed Alzheimer's disease or a different type of dementia, which was almost 30 per cent.

Only 82 out of the 407 in the lowest level group were diagnosed with dementia, which was just over 21 per cent.

The results showed a link between trans fats and dementia even when other factors that could affect the risk of dementia, such as high blood pressure, diabetes and smoking, were taken into account.

People with the second highest level of trans fats, based on their blood tests, were 74 per cent more likely to develop dementia than those with the lowest level.

SOURCE  Journal article is Serum elaidic acid concentration and risk of dementia





Pronoun plods: virtue-signalling police force crosses (thin blue) line

In 2017, British man Matthew Furlong, 25, applied to join the Cheshire Police Service. This was a lifelong ambition and by all accounts he was an outstanding applicant. During his interview he was told “It was refreshing to meet someone as well prepared as yourself” and that he “could not have done any more”.

To his disappointment, he was later told he had lost out to other applicants. This was perplexing, for he had performed exceptionally well in the process. His father, a detective inspector in the same force, lodged a complaint. It transpired the recruitment branch had not been forthcoming with feedback, and that a combination of three traits had held Furlong junior back. First, he is male. Second, he is white. Third, he is heterosexual. Also, he had applied at the same time the force had decided it was time for a diversity binge.

While British employment law permits so-called “positive action” for recruitment and promotion in the name of diversity, there are limitations. For example, where a man and woman have equal claims to a position in a male-dominated industry, the employer may lawfully discriminate in favour of the female. However, this would be unlawful if the male applicant demonstrated better claims to the position.

The force attempted to circumvent this by dropping its recruitment standards to an artificially low level and assigning applicants a simple “pass” or “fail” mark as opposed to rating them in order. By doing this it argued that “protected-characteristics”-classified applicants who scored a “pass” rating had equal claims to that of Furlong, who had tertiary qualifications.

In February this year an employment tribunal found the force had unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of sexual orientation, race and gender. As Furlong bitterly reflected, had he lied on his application form to the effect he was bisexual, he would be walking a beat by now. “The irony of the whole thing is that throughout the whole process I was required to demonstrate my honesty and integrity and they have completely undermined that,” he stated.

While accepting the tribunal’s findings, the newly appointed deputy chief constable Julie Cooke said the processes had been put in place “with the best of intentions”. That was not the smartest of responses, especially given rogue police have a long history of acting unlawfully with good intentions, but that is by the bye.

You would also think the force had more important things to think about than diversity. Two years ago, Cheshire experienced the third-highest crime rate rise in the country. Sex offences rose 34 per cent, robberies by 33 per cent, violence crime by 43 per cent, and public order offences a whopping 124 per cent. So what have been the force’s priorities since then?

Put it this way: last week the force again made international headlines for the wrong reasons, and this time Cooke was at the centre. Posting a video on her official Twitter account, the deputy chief constable, in full uniform and with her organisation’s logo in background, pontificated about the importance of observing “International Pronouns Day”.

Referring to transgender people and those who are “gender non-conforming” she stated, “Today is about raising awareness, getting people to have conversations and understanding why it’s so important to understand the pronouns that somebody wishes to be used for them. Warning of the dangers of “misgendering”, Cooke, who is also the UK National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the LGBT plus portfolio, added it could “have a huge impact on somebody and their personal well-being”. Judging by the intense backlash, you could say the public gave Cooke a lesson on the dangers of misjudging.

No doubt the gormless Cooke would again claim she was acting with the best of intentions. But there is something profoundly disconcerting about a high-ranking government official — especially one with the power to deprive citizens of their liberty — dictating the use of logically non-conforming pronouns.

When Cooke said this was about “getting people to have conversations” about pronouns, she was resorting to authoritarian irony. From her perspective, there is no conversation to be had and no debate will be permitted, because the social science is settled. Subjective belief determines gender no matter how ludicrous the claim, and you will validate it through express affirmation or else.

It brings to mind a certain literary excerpt. “You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you … that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.” How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?

It is hard to believe this is the same country that created the model for professional policing. Its founder, Home Secretary Sir Robert Peel, who formed the Metropolitan Police Service in 1829, was acutely aware of concerns this body would repress civil liberties. Accordingly, he and the inaugural commissioners instilled in the force what become known as the Peelian principles, the basis of which was providing policing through the public’s consent.

While Peel is still admired for his contribution to policing, we are forgetting something important. He is a dead white male, and as we all know they are synonymous with sexism, racism, patriarchy, and privilege. Accordingly, we should revise the Peelian principles to better reflect the functions of modern policing in Britain.

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. Outdated. Amend to: “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent people from being offended.”

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions. Amend to clarify that “public approval” is defined by the opinions of rainbow activists, human rights commissions, anti-discrimination boards, and disgruntled minority groups.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. Amend to include “after the police service has gaslighted them no end”.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. Agreed. Far better to use Orwellian terminology and monitoring to browbeat and intimidate.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. Amend to “Police seek and preserve public favour by catering to public opinion (to be read in conjunction with point 2)”.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient. This one can go altogether. After all, when was the last time you saw a police officer use physical force against a lawbreaker? Think Extinction Rebellion protests.

7. Police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police. Amend to “Police at all times should maintain a relationship with a public that gives reality the heave-ho.”

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. Amend to clarify that the function of the police is to give instructions to the public on what is “appropriate” behaviour.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. Amend to “The test of police efficiency is no visible evidence of action in dealing with crime and disorder.”

My apologies in advance to all the hardworking operational police out there, who no doubt are embarrassed by their virtue-signalling, desk-bound superiors. On a happier note, Cheshire Police has improved in one respect: in May this year it was announced Furlong would be entering the force in September. Let’s hope we see more of his type and less of the pronoun plods.

SOURCE 







Christmas parties cancelled. Written consent for sex. A growing hostility between men and women. In a provocative blast, a female academic argues: Yes it had noble intentions, but it’s time we called time on #MeToo

Two small words. That’s all it took to create a new religion — one that has sparked witch-hunts, ruined reputations and fostered a climate of suspicion that shows no signs of waning.

Two years ago, actress and producer Alyssa Milano took to Twitter and told her followers: ‘If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted, write “me too” as a reply to this tweet.’

A week earlier, The New York Times had printed an investigation into the then most powerful man in Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein. It accused the movie mogul of being a serial sexual predator who’d been paying off his accusers for decades.

Weinstein resigned from his production company days later.

But, if it were not for Milano’s tweet — from which the hashtag #MeToo was born — his fall from grace, and the ensuing legal case that prompted more accusers to come forward with shocking accusations, might have been the end of it.

Instead, within a week of Milano’s call to arms, #MeToo had been used 1.7 million times on social media in 85 countries.

It morphed into a global movement raising awareness of sexual harassment and inspired the Time’s Up protests. Soon, its influence was felt beyond the internet and the list of victims — and the accused — grew.

Household names such as Bill Cosby, convicted of multiple sex crimes, and Kevin Spacey, who remains under investigation, are just two of them.

This month, Prime Minister Boris Johnson came under scrutiny after journalist Charlotte Edwardes accused him of squeezing her thigh at a lunch 20 years ago — which he denies.

Leading MeToo-ers, lauded as ‘The Silence Breakers’ on the cover of Time Magazine in 2017, boasted that, before #MeToo, women kept silent about the abuse they’d suffered.

While it is true that the movement has made it easier for women — including Hollywood stars Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Cara Delevingne, plus many thousands more worldwide — to speak out about sexual harassment, I firmly believe that its second birthday is not something to celebrate unquestioningly.

It may have made some men think twice before behaving like lecherous idiots, but I fear it has also had a ruinous impact on everyday relationships, undermined our centuries-old justice system and led to the suicide of a British politician.

Within days of #MeToo going global, I, along with a handful of traditional feminists, expressed concern about what the movement might become.

After all, it began life on Twitter, which requires users to communicate in 280 characters or fewer. That doesn’t exactly lend itself to the nuanced tone required to discuss abuse.

That #MeToo brings genuine abusers to light is, of course, to be applauded. However, allegations soon became rumour and hearsay.

And Twitter’s group dynamic, — where users often gang up on others — ensured that often only one response was acceptable: to believe, without question or criticism, the accuser.

Forget about delivering justice — in the world of #MeToo, the accused are always guilty until proven innocent. That’s if any attempt at relying on the law is made at all.

As we in Britain know all too well, assuming that anyone accused of sexual offences is guilty before they have been able to defend themselves can have awful consequences.

In November 2017, a month after Milano’s tweet, Welsh Government minister Carl Sargeant was found dead at home. He had been accused of inappropriate conduct towards women and, after being hounded by activists without ever being told the specific details of the claims, took his own life.

No one can guess another’s mental state, and we’ll never know the full facts of this case. But had there not been such a climate of hysteria, it is possible that his wife, Bernadette, would still have a husband and their children, Jack and Lucy, would still have a father.

So far, #MeToo has resulted in sex abusers being exposed, but also ruined the reputations of innocent men. It has harmed women, too.

For #MeToo activists have made their definition of ‘sexual assault’ so trivial that vulnerable victims who have suffered genuinely traumatic experiences are undermined.

At first, #MeToo focused on accusations of rape. But, as more and more women spoke out, their allegations ranged from serious criminal offences to bad behaviour.

In December 2017, Conservative MP Damian Green, who was then the Deputy Prime Minister and Theresa May’s right-hand man, had his reputation damaged when journalist Kate Maltby accused him of ‘fleetingly’ touching her knee when she was a young Tory activist — a claim he has strenuously denied.

Across the Atlantic, the campaign of U.S. presidential hopeful Joe Biden was almost derailed after a former politician said he made her feel ‘uneasy, gross and confused’ in 2014 when he allegedly kissed her on the back of the head.

In one of the most frivolous cases to go viral, comedian Aziz Ansari almost had his career ruined after a woman he once dated complained online she felt his pattern of behaviour was coercive.

Among her claims were that he left a restaurant too early, poured her red wine instead of white and tried to kiss her when her ‘non-verbal cues’ told him she wasn’t up for it.

In hindsight, it is easy to laugh at how these #MeToo misdemeanours have been blown out of proportion. But it is also deeply concerning.

For if all these behaviours — rape, flirtation, picking the wrong bottle of wine — are thrown together under the same banner, it risks giving the appearance that serious sexual assault and knee-touching are equivalent offences.

By broadening the definition of sexual assault, #MeToo’s proponents have diluted and undermined its very meaning.

That doesn’t mean, however, that campaigners regard all victims as equal.

Over the past two years, we have read a great deal about knees being touched, and you could be forgiven for thinking that sexual predators only target middle-class legs in posh London restaurants.

But this approach has the unintended impact of erasing genuine cases of gross misbehaviour, many of which are shamefully and wilfully ignored.

When was the last time the #MeToo brigade lamented the plight of the working-class girls of Rotherham, Huddersfield and Telford — some just 11 years old — who were groomed and raped by men of Pakistani heritage?

Girls were often passed between abusers. Some were made pregnant, had abortions and were raped time and again. Three women were murdered and two others died in tragedies linked to the abuse.

Of course, the scandalous treatment of these young girls did come to light some years before #MeToo was born. But do today’s campaigners really think that grooming in these areas has miraculously stopped after a handful of prosecutions?

Ever since care home managers in the Midlands warned of child sex rings in the Nineties, worrying new cases have continued to come to the surface.

In the spirit of #MeToo, one might expect activists to march through these areas, demanding financial support for the abused girls and their families. But the collective silence of #MeToo on this issue is a stain on the proud history of feminism.

A century ago, Suffragettes, in particular Sylvia Pankhurst, put their lives on the line to fight for the rights of British women — including working-class women — to vote.

Back then, the sisterhood wasn’t confined to middle-class activists. It was a universal movement dedicated to serious problems.

But now, either Northern girls don’t make for such sympathetic victims or Pakistani-heritage men are ‘problematic’ perpetrators. Whichever it is, there is a shameless double standard at the heart of the #MeToo movement.

How else can we explain the activists’ preference for policing the workplace to confronting grooming gangs?

Countless surveys over the past two years have been wheeled out to prove that sexual harassment is rife in the office.

They make for alarming reading — until we dig deeper.

Take one study, commissioned by the Trades Union Congress in May this year. Entitled ‘Sexual harassment of LGBT people in the workplace’, it claims roughly 70 per cent of LGBT workers have been sexually harassed at work. It’s a shocking statistic. But, if you look at the types of assault highlighted in the study, the most frequently reported form of sexual harassment was . . . a joke.

For the survey’s creators, intent on shining a spotlight on sexual harassment even in places where it doesn’t exist, it didn’t matter if the victim was the subject of a joke or even the intended audience — they may have just overheard a quip shared, just once, many years earlier.

So now fun has been erased in the workplace. Some firms have banned alcohol from work functions, others have vetoed hugging. A handful have even cancelled office Christmas parties.

Wherever you venture — from your place of work to your local bar — a pungent cloud of suspicion now hangs over every interaction between a man and a woman.

#MeToo’s message of fear and distrust has spread into every corner of our lives. And it shows no sign of relenting.

Almost two-thirds of universities now offer students sexual consent classes, in which they are taught that sex is a good thing as long as certain rituals are observed beforehand.

Lessons focus on how to seek consent before a sexual encounter and how to know whether or not your partner agrees.

This is an incredibly patronising development. If any student needs to be taught that rape is wrong, let alone the difference between ‘yes’ and ‘no’, then they certainly should not be allowed anywhere near a university.

Worse, in being expected to carry out a formal negotiation process detailing in advance exactly who will do what to whom, where, when and for how long, embarking on sex becomes terrifyingly over-complicated.

Forget passion and spontaneity. In a world where young adults can’t be left alone to work out how to get someone into bed with them, it’s hardly surprising that one in eight 26-year-olds today has never had sex, compared with one in 20 a generation ago.

If today’s students are tomorrow’s parents, teachers and lawyers, then the university campus offers us a terrible glimpse into the future.

It’s a world where men and women lead increasingly separate lives. It’s a world where women tremble at an unwanted glance and men carry consent forms to protect themselves in case the police are called after a night out.

It’s an unforgiving place where men are tried and found guilty after one mistake, or one imagined mistake; where relationships between men and women, once the bedrock of families and communities, are no longer forged from love and trust, but fear.

Two years is more than enough: we need to call time on #MeToo.

SOURCE 





Australia: Fury as popular public swimming pool introduces gender segregation and women-only sessions in response to requests from Muslims

A popular public swimming pool has come under fire after introducing gender segregation.

Canberra Olympic Pool brought in new program earlier this month after a series of demands from the city's Muslim community.

The pool will now hold women-only sessions on Saturday nights from 5.30-7, and the same for men on Sunday nights.

One mother said her daughter had been left devastated after she arrived at the pool only to be turned away because it was open to 'boys only'.

'My daughter, in tears, couldn't understand why it was 'boys only'. Like many Canberra parents, my husband and I are trying to raise our child to believe that her gender is not a barrier to anything and to not be self-conscious about her body,' the mother told The Canberra Times. 

'How can we do this when public institutions blatantly turn her away because she is a girl?'

Others slammed the idea on Facebook, labelling it as 'backwards'.

'Does the government not trust males and females in the same pool. Gone crazy totally. We have fought for equality for years and the government and religions are slowly chipping away at it,' one person wrote.

'This country is heading backwards,' another said.

Despite the controversy, Tracy King, the centre's manager told The Australian that the pool has seen an increase in swimmers after the program was introduced.

'We've had two weeks of the trial so far and had extremely high attendance numbers especially for the female sessions,' Ms King said.

She said they picked certain time slots that would be the most convenient for other swimmers.

'The hour also incorporates learn-to-swim classes, which has been greatly appreciated because many are unable to swim or don't often have access to a pool.'

'Because of their culture, some can’t be around men in that setting so they really enjoyed the experience. It was like they were having a party and could relax.' 

The program will run until the end of the month where it will be reviewed over whether it will continue long term.

Daily Mail Australia has contacted the Canberra Olympic Pool and the ACT Government for comment.

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************