This common drink increases the risk of serious heart condition, study finds
The commentary below is greatly over hyped. The "Results" section of the journal abstract below. We see that all the Hazard Ratios were quite low -- meaning weak effects -- with the results from sugar-sweetened and articially sweetened drinks being virually the same. As usual, income was not controlled for so all we are probably seeng here is that poor people (big drinkers of fizzy drinks) have worse health. Richer and wiser people drink orange juice. Rather amusing, really
During a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 9362 incident AF cases were documented. Compared with nonconsumers, individuals who consumed >2 L/wk of SSB or ASB had an increased risk of AF (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01–1.20] and HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10–1.31]) in the multivariable-adjusted model. A negative association was observed between the consumption of ≤1 L/wk of PJ and the risk of AF (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87–0.97]). The highest HRs (95% CIs) of AF were observed for participants at high genetic risk who consumed >2 L/wk of ASB (HR, 3.51 [95% CI, 2.94–4.19]), and the lowest HR were observed for those at low genetic risk who consumed ≤1 L/wk of PJ (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65–0.92]). No significant interactions were observed between the consumption of SSB, ASB, or PJ and genetic predisposition to AF.
Whether you're looking to satisfy a craving with a crisp can of sugary goodness or offset it completely with the refreshing taste of your favourite diet soda, when it comes to selecting a beverage from a drinks menu, we’re spoilt for choice.
But are our ‘healthier’ drink choices really adding much value to our well-being in the long run? According to a new study, they could be having the opposite effect.
Published in the journal Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, the research follows the drinking habits of roughly 202,000 adults aged 37 to 73 in the United Kingdom, examining the results of a 24-hour diet questionnaire.
Specifically, the findings of the study suggest a strong correlation between adults drinking no to low-sugar beverages and their risk of developing atrial fibrillation.
Individuals who reported consuming more than two litres of artificially sweetened drinks in the 24-hour time period were found to have a 20 per cent higher chance of developing the condition (that’s roughly six standard cans).
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a serious cardiovascular disease defined by having a heartbeat that is too slow, too fast or irregular. Additionally, patients diagnosed with AF report symptoms such as lightheadedness, chest pain, extreme fatigue, and shortness of breath. Most notably, atrial fibrillation has been found to be the leading cause of stroke in the United States.
According to the Heart Foundation, atrial fibrillation is the most common recurring arrhythmia found in clinical practice, prevalent in two to four per cent of the population in developed nations such as Australia.
Additionally, the findings indicated that the individuals who reported consuming beverages with added sugars had an increased risk of the disease by up to ten per cent. On the flip side, consuming unsweetened juices, such as natural orange juice, was associated with a reduced risk of up to eight per cent.
“Our study’s findings cannot definitively conclude that one beverage poses more health risk than another due to the complexity of our diets and because some people may drink more than one type of beverage,” says lead study author Dr Ningjian Wang, a professor at the Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.
“However, based on these findings, we recommend that people reduce or even avoid artificially sweetened and sugar-sweetened beverages whenever possible,” Wang added in a statement discussing the study’s findings.
While the results are certainly worth discussing, this is the first study of its kind to examine the correlation between atrial fibrillation and both sugar-sweetened and no-to-low-calorie artificially sweetened beverages, indicating much further research is needed to fully understand the risks associated with each beverage.
So, if diet sodas and ‘no-sugar’ alternatives could be facilitating equally as much damage to our health, what’s the safest drink to turn to? Based on the study’s results, the safest hydration option is plain and simple H2O.
“Do not take it for granted that drinking low-sugar and low-calorie artificially sweetened beverages is healthy, it may pose potential health risks,” warns Wang.
***********************************************
Panamanian Court Acquits 28 Defendants In 'Panama Papers' Trial
I had totally forgotten about this issue. Rather amazing that it took 8 years to come to a resolution. A lot of people will be pleased
A Panamanian court on Friday acquitted 28 people charged with money laundering in connection with the now-defunct law firm Mossack Fonseca, the epicenter of the "Panama Papers" international tax evasion scandal.
Among those acquitted were the firm's founders, Jurgen Mossack and Ramon Fonseca, the latter of whom died in May in a Panamanian hospital.
During the trial, which was held in Panama City in April, the prosecution asked for 12 years in prison for the duo, the maximum sentence for money laundering.
However, Judge Baloisa Marquinez acquitted the pair and 26 others after finding that evidence taken from the law firm's servers had not been gathered in line with due process, raising doubts about its "authenticity and integrity," a court statement said.
The judge also ruled that "the rest of the evidence was not sufficient and conclusive to determine the criminal responsibility of the defendants," the court statement said.
Leaked documents from Mossack Fonseca in 2016 revealed how many of the world's wealthy stashed assets in offshore companies, triggering scores of investigations around the globe.
Those implicated included former British premier David Cameron, Russian President Vladimir Putin, football star Lionel Messi, Argentina's then-president Mauricio Macri and Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodovar, to name but a few.
Panamanian prosecutors had alleged that Mossack and Fonseca helped create opaque companies in which executives of the German multinational Siemens deposited millions of euros outside the company's official accounts.
They were also charged with helping divert money from a massive fraud in Argentina.
"Justice has been done, we are extremely satisfied with the ruling handed down by the judge," Guillermina McDonald, lawyer for Mossack and other defendants, told AFP.
However, "we are a little sad because along the way we lost Mr. Ramon Fonseca, and he has not been able to see this result," she added.
The trial began eight years after the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) began publishing the "Panama Papers" on April 3, 2016.
The investigation, based on 11.5 million leaked documents from Mossack Fonseca, revealed how personalities from around the world hid properties, companies, assets and profits to evade taxes or launder money.
To do so, they created companies through the firm, opening bank accounts and creating shell foundations in multiple countries to hide money, which in some cases came from illicit activities, according to the investigation.
The scandal led to the closure of Mossack Fonseca and shaped the international image of Panama as an offshore tax haven.
Offshore companies are not in themselves illegal, and there are numerous legitimate reasons for using them. But they can also be used to launder the proceeds of criminal activities or to conceal misappropriated or politically inconvenient wealth.
"Truly there has been a great injustice that has been done," Mossack said after the conclusion of the hearing.
"Both my partner and all the people who have worked with me have been serious, honest and correct people," he added.
*******************************************
The Supreme Court just ended ‘Chevron.’ What does that mean and how far will its impact reach?
The Supreme Court’s decision to scale back the authority of federal agencies means regulations and rules for the environment, health care, financial services, food safety, transportation and more could be dramatically altered moving forward.
Friday’s decision, ushered by the conservative arm of the court, overturns a 40-year precedent that allowed federal agencies to defer to their own expertise when interpreting ambiguous language, known as the “Chevron deference.”
Now, agencies will have to turn to Congress or the courts for guidance.
Experts are expecting far-reaching repercussions that could cause large delays in implementing rules and regulations since Congress will now have to understand complex issues and decide how to proceed. In the past, the agencies could decide how to handle enforcement or regulatory issues themselves.
Organizations that rely on federal agency’s guidance are warning about the potential for their respective industry.
Environmental
Policies set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency aimed at reducing climate change will most likely see a significant rollback under the new standard.
Already, the federal agency has faced difficulties implementing rules to reduce air pollution and cut greenhouse gas emissions in Congress and the courts.
“This is yet another blow to the EPA’s ability to tackle emerging problems like climate change,” Cara Horowtiz, an environmental lawyer, said in a statement.
She added, “By eliminating the duty of federal courts to defer to agencies in areas where the law is ambiguous about how to handle new or emerging threats, the Supreme Court takes more tools out of the toolbox of our federal regulators."
Public health
Healthcare organizations fear that without the protections of Chevron could cause “significant disruptions” to publicly-funded health programs such as Medicare or Medicaid by allowing courts or Congress to decide how those programs are funded or administered.
“Large health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, as well as issues related to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, are extremely complex, so it is key that decisions about how to interpret and implement relevant laws are made by experts at government agencies,” a statement from the American Public Health Association and 17 other groups said.
“Yet today’s majority opinion explicitly ends the use of this sensible doctrine,” the statement continued.
Agencies that have been subject to political controversy like the Centers for Disease Control or Food and Drug Adminstraiton will be forced to listen to Congress when determining what they can or cannot do.
Financial sector
The elimination of Chevron could open the door for a slew of legal challenges to financial regulations set by the Securities Exchange Commission, IRS, Treasury and more.
For example, the decision could lead to challenges in IRS oversight, according to Kiplinger. The new regulations could make IRS tax compliance and enforcement more difficult as the agency will have to seek Congressional guidance on how to handle those issues.
Some financial groups that advocate for a more fiscally conservative agenda welcomed Friday’s decision. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation said in a statement that it would “level the playing field for taxpayers and government agencies.”
“Unreasonable IRS interpretations will no longer automatically win in court, which is as it should be, and reasonable interpretations will still have the force of law,” Joe Bishop-Henchman, vice president of the group, said.
The court’s decision could also make it more difficult for regulatory authorities to quickly enact rules that address timely issues - such as cryptocurrency regulation.
Some financial groups that advocate for a more fiscally conservative agenda welcomed Friday’s decision to limit agency oversight, such as those from the IRS (AP)
Labor unions
Labor boards have relied heavily on Chevron to issue guidance and enact protections for workers.
But under the new ruling, workers’ boards such as the National Labor Relations Board will most likely have to turn to judges to issue case decisions and interpret rules. The American Federation of Teachers, the country’s second-largest educator’s union, blasted the decision.
“The Supreme Court’s shameful decision turns democracy on its head. It fundamentally changes the role of unelected judges from interpreters of law to makers of law—and there is nothing in the Constitution that warrants that. By eliminating deference to public agencies, the court has undermined the ability of experts to set strong rules to protect consumers, workers and the public from corporations and other lawbreakers,” President Randi Weingarten said.
“This decision has real-life consequences for American families. It shifts power away from agencies with public-focused missions toward courtrooms and corporate lawyers adept at poking holes in regulations. It injects legal uncertainty into areas like workplace safety rules, overtime pay policies and collective bargaining rights interpretations—all of which have long relied on agencies’ Chevron-backed expertise. It will make it easier for employers to steal wages from their workers, and it could stop the Department of Health and Human Services from directly negotiating prescription drug prices for Medicare.”
https://au.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-just-ended-chevron-205557210.html
***********************************************************Trump Commands Stage, Biden Revealed
By Rick Manning
The Trump-Biden debate was at times difficult to watch.
I repeatedly found myself screaming at the television. When I could make out what Biden was saying, I screamed what a bunch of ‘malarkey.’
When I screamed at President Trump, it was because of a missed opportunity. Just one example was the long back and forth on veterans. Rather than argue over who veterans liked the most, Trump should have pointed out that at the end of the Obama-Biden presidency, seriously ill veterans were unable to get appointments with the VA to see a doctor. Why? The career bureaucrats in charge made a decision to put them at the back of the line because they were going to die anyway.
President Trump ended this evil by passing bi-partisan legislation which reformed the VA, and made it possible to fire those VA bureaucrats who didn’t do their job. Vice President Biden left vets on the streets to die, Trump fired the horrible human beings who made the decision to leave them in agony without treatment and put people in charge who made it a priority to take care of sick veterans. It is that simple.
Of course, President Biden glitched at the very beginning of the debate for what was an interminable amount of time, and had at least a couple of other obvious events where he completely lost his place on the script he was force fed over the eleven days he spent preparing for the debate.
But the problem for Democratic operatives is that Biden revealed that he cannot mentally do the job of being president, but didn’t suffer a complete meltdown which could be used to justify removing him from the ticket. Biden likely did just enough to avoid a palace coup leading to his being denied the nomination and removed from the presidency, but not enough to dissuade anyone from the idea that he is not fit to serve for another four years.
And, by the way, if anyone believes Biden has a six handicap, then they probably also think his uncle was eaten by cannibals. Of course, someone who fills his speeches with fairy tales and outright lies about his personal achievements would be exactly the 80 year old golfer who claimed to have a six handicap.
Trump’s strategy in the debate was clear and he stuck to it. Keep pounding on Biden’s border crisis, and throw in the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal as an occasional chaser. This was most effective when he kept reminding viewers about the Biden administration policy of opening up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the millions of illegals they have allowed to stream into the country, while also putting these illegals up in luxury hotels while our veterans sleep on the streets.
As for Biden, he reminded me of an end of career boxer who was just trying to hang on to the final bell. The only thing that was missing was Corn Pop.
In the end, it was a clear win for President Trump. The format that Biden insisted upon helped focus Trump and kept him from taking Biden’s bait on a couple of issues.
I wish President Trump had immediately answered the question on accepting the election result with a cohesive nuanced affirmative, that win or lose, once the election was certified by Congress, he would accept the results, clarifying that investigating various state election procedures was completely in line, to make future elections more secure and honest.
And I wish he had spent more time talking about what the withdrawal from Afghanistan should have looked like, in contrast to Biden’s giving up our secure air base to the Taliban and then trying to evacuate under duress from a commercial airport, leaving American citizens and our best allies behind. This basic failure of leadership by Commander and Chief Biden which led to 13 of our brave servicemembers deaths is reason enough to deny him four more years.
Obviously, there were questions not answered and at times Biden looked childish and petty.
Overall, Trump earned a solid B, while Biden showing clear decline was at best a D+. I am not certain that anyone who supported Trump going in was not supporting him at the end. Those who are voting for Biden because they hate Trump will still vote for Biden while wishing they had a better option. And those undecideds, either became Trump supporters based upon the issues of their economic interests, or moved off of Biden to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is the candidate who is most likely to see a move in his numbers out of formerly Biden voters.
All in all, national Democratic leaders were the biggest losers as Biden did just enough to keep them from denying him the nomination, but not enough to convince anyone that he is capable of doing the job for another four years – purported golf handicap notwithstanding.
Whether the Democrats remove him or not, this was the debate when the American public learned what the rest of the world knows, the American President is capable of doing the job, and every day he remains in office the world gets to be a much more dangerous place.
If polling tells the Democrat hierarchy that Biden is no longer a viable candidate, they will remove him. The question becomes will they use the 25th amendment to the Constitution to end his presidency as someone who is no longer fit to serve.
To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/06/trump-commands-stage-biden-revealed/
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment