Vitamin D does not protect you from heart attacks

Vitamin D Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Risks in More Than 83 000 Individuals in 21 Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-analysis

Mahmoud Barbarawi et al.

Abstract

Importance:  Observational studies have reported an association between low serum vitamin D levels and elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but such studies cannot prove causation because of possible unmeasured confounding.

Objective:  We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that tested the association of vitamin D supplementation with reduced CVD events and all-cause mortality.

Data Sources:  Literature search through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase was completed by 2 reviewers from each database’s inception to December 15, 2018.

Study Selection:  Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials that reported the effect of long-term (≥1 year) vitamin D supplementation on CVD events and all-cause mortality. Studies that did not include cardiovascular outcomes were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis:  Data were abstracted independently by 2 authors. Random-effects models were used to report the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs.

Main Outcomes and Measures:  Major adverse cardiovascular events was the primary outcome, and rates of myocardial infarction, stroke or cerebrovascular accident, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality were the secondary end points.

Results:  Twenty-one randomized clinical trials were included (including 83 291 patients, of whom 41 669 received vitamin D and 41 622 received placebos). The mean (SD) age of trial participants was 65.8 (8.4) years; 61 943 (74.4%) were female. Only 4 trials had prespecified CVD as a primary end point. Vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo was not associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.06]; P = .85) nor the secondary end points of myocardial infarction (RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93-1.08]; P = .92), stroke (RR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.98-1.15]; P = .16), CVD mortality (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.07]; P = .68), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93-1.02]; P = .23). Results were generally consistent by sex, baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, vitamin D dosage, formulation (daily vs bolus dosing), and presence or absence of concurrent calcium administration.

Conclusions and Relevance:  In this updated meta-analysis, vitamin D supplementation was not associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events, individual CVD end points (myocardial infarction, stroke, CVD mortality), or all-cause mortality. The findings suggest that vitamin D supplementation does not confer cardiovascular protection and is not indicated for this purpose.

JAMA Cardiol. Published online June 19, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1870






Dems Allege Racism After DOJ's Garner Decision

DOJ decides to the drop civil-rights case against NYPD Officer Pantaleo

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it would not bring any federal charges against New York City Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo for causing the death of Eric Garner. Five years ago, Pantaleo, while attempting to subdue and arrest a belligerent and much larger Garner, placed him in a chokehold, which according New York City’s medical examiner, triggered an asthma attack leading to his death. Black Lives Matter exploited the incident by coopting Garner’s last words — “I can’t breathe” — for another one of the group’s post-Ferguson rallying cries against police.

Upon hearing the news this week, Democrat presidential candidates took the opportunity to parrot the vacuous claims of Black Lives Matter, condemning the DOJ’s decision and insisting that this was yet another example of America’s criminal-justice system being racist. Sen. Kamala Harris asserted, “This is a miscarriage of justice. Our criminal-justice system should be rooted in accountability. My heart breaks for the Garner family.” Sen. Cory Booker called the decision “wrong” and “unjust.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed that the justice system had failed “to hold police accountable.” Finally, Sen. Bernie Sanders called America’s justice system a “racist criminal-justice system” that needs reforming. (Some of that reform, by the way, took place thanks to President Donald Trump’s leadership.)

The real issue here was the fact that there was little evidence to make a civil-rights case against Officer Pantaleo. While Democrats spin this as evidence of supposed racism from Trump and his administration, the reality is Attorney General William Barr was simply following New York’s recommendation. As an official from the U.S. Attorney’s New York Eastern District explained, “This should not have ended with the death of a person, but that’s a very different question than what’s presented to a prosecutor when deciding under the Justice manual whether a person should be indicted. You can’t watch the video and not feel great sympathy towards Eric Garner but then I think you have to impose a rigorous legal examination of the facts.”

SOURCE 
  





Netflix Sees Historic Dip in Subscribers During Same Quarter Executive Denounces Georgia’s Pro-Life Bill

Netflix’s latest quarterly report shows the streaming service giant experienced a chill in growth with its first quarterly loss of paid domestic subscribers in eight years. The dip in subscriptions came in the same quarter as Netflix’s decision to take a stance against Georgia’s pro-life “heartbeat bill.”

Netflix “on Wednesday reported a loss of 126,000 domestic paid subscribers compared with analysts’ expectations for a 352,000 gain,” CNBC reported. “Netflix also missed its own forecast for global subscriber growth by 2.3 million.”

A shareholders report stated that the company’s “U.S. paid membership was essentially flat in Q2, [but they] expect it to return to more typical growth in Q3.”

Pro-life activist Lila Rose, president and founder of the nonprofit Live Action, tweeted, “When Georgia passed the Heartbeat bill, Netflix threatened to stop doing business in the pro-life state. Thousands of pro-life customers expressed their outrage.”

Georgia’s heartbeat bill was signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, on May 7. Set to go into effect on Jan. 1, the law will impose restrictions on abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Before the release of the shareholders report, Netflix’s shares were up more than 35%. Now, the stock will open at its lowest price since January, “shaving $20 billion from its market cap and bringing it to about $138 billion,” according to CNBC.

Kemp stated on the day of the bill’s passage that he is standing by his promise to implement the “toughest abortion bill in the country.”

“Georgia is a state that values life,” Kemp said. “We stand up for those who are unable to speak for themselves.”

Following the bill’s passage, Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, told Variety:

It’s why we will work with the ACLU and others to fight it in court. Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we’ll continue to film there, while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to. Should it ever come into effect, we’d rethink our entire investment in Georgia.

At the time, Live Action’s Rose took to Twitter to voice her opposition to Sarandos’ comments:

Half the country is pro-life. The vast majority want abortion limits. Netflix’s pro-abortion views are regressive and don’t belong in a civilized, loving society. Wake up, Netflix. Many of your employees, customers and America are increasingly pro-life.

Zemmie Fleck, executive director of  Georgia Right to Life, said at a press conference that “Netflix, among other film industry giants, is using intimidation in order to force Georgians to trade innocent human lives for money. We are here today to stand up to this intimidation so that Georgia does not lose its identity as a pro-life state that values life and we end up like New York that has legalized infantcide.”

The Daily Signal reached out to Netflix for additional comment about whether the company thinks pro-life Americans canceling their Netflix subscriptions contributed to its decline in subscribers but received no response.

SOURCE 






Eastern Europe’s ‘Subconscious Fear’ of Islam: The Siege of Vienna, 1683

According to Turkish historian Erhan Afyoncu, “Austria acts against Muslims almost every day because of their subconscious fear of Turks.  Austrians have not forgotten the fear and their emperor’s escape in the Battle of Vienna in 1683. When Turks were defeated in the Battle of Vienna, Europeans were so happy…”

This is true.  As such, a brief refresher on the Siege of Vienna—the anniversary of which is today—is in order:

The largest Islamic army ever to invade European territory—which is saying much considering that countless invasions preceded it since the eighth century—came and surrounded Vienna, then the heart of the Holy Roman Empire and longtime nemesis of Islam, around July 15, 1683.

Some 200,000 Muslim combatants, under the leadership of the Ottomans—the one state in nearly fourteen centuries of Islamic history most dedicated to and founded on the principles of jihad—invaded under the same rationale that so-called “radical” groups, such as the Islamic State, cite to justify their jihad on “infidels.”  Or, to quote the leader of the Muslim expedition, Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, because Vienna was perceived as the head of the infidel snake, it needed to be laid low so that “all the Christians would obey the Ottomans.”

This was no idle boast; sources describe this Mustafa as “fanatically anti-Christian.” After capturing a Polish town in 1674 he ordered all the Christian prisoners to be skinned alive and their stuffed hides sent as trophies to Ottoman Sultan Muhammad IV.

Such supremacist hate was standard and on display during the elaborate pre-jihad ceremony presaging the siege of Vienna.  Then, the sultan, “desiring him [Mustafa] to fight generously for the Mahometan faith,” to quote a contemporary European source, placed “the standard of the Prophet…into his hands for the extirpation of infidels, and the increase of Muslemen.”

Once the massive Muslim army reached and surrounded the walls of Vienna, Mustafa followed protocol. In 628, his prophet Muhammad had sent an ultimatum to Emperor Heraclius: aslam taslam, “submit [to Islam] and have peace.”  Heraclius rejected the summons, jihad was declared against Christendom (as enshrined in Koran 9:29), and in a few decades, two-thirds of the then Christian world—including Spain, all of North Africa, Egypt, and Greater Syria—were conquered.

Now, over a thousand years later, the same ultimatum of submission to Islam or death had reached the heart of Europe.  Although the Viennese commander did not bother to respond to the summons, graffiti inside the city—including “Muhammad, you dog, go home!”—seems to capture its mood.

So it would be war.  On the next day, Mustafa unleashed all hell against the city’s walls; and for two months, the holed-up and vastly outnumbered Viennese suffered plague, dysentery, starvation, and many casualties—including women and children—in the name of jihad.

Then, on September 12, when the city had reached its final extremity, and the Muslims were about to burst through, Vienna’s prayers were answered.  As an anonymous Englishman explained:

After a siege of sixty days, accompanied with a thousand difficulties, sicknesses, want of provisions, and great effusion of blood, after a million of cannon and musquet shot, bombs, granadoes, and all sorts of fireworks, which has changed the face of the fairest and most flourishing city in the world, disfigured and ruined [it] . . . heaven favorably heard the prayers and tears of a cast down and mournful people.
The formidable king of Poland, John Sobieski, had finally come at the head of 65,000 heavily-armored Poles, Austrians, and Germans—all hot to avenge the beleaguered city.  Arguing that “It is not a city alone that we have to save, but the whole of Christianity, of which the city of Vienna is the bulwark,” Sobieski led a thunderous cavalry charge—history’s largest—against and totally routed the Muslim besiegers.

Although a spectacular victory, the aftermath was gory: before fleeing, the Muslims ritually slaughtered some 30,000 Christian captives collected during their march to Vienna—raping the women beforehand.  On entering the relieved city, the liberators encountered piles of corpses, sewage, and rubble everywhere.

It is this history of Islamic aggression—beginning in the fourteenth century when Muslims first established a foothold in Eastern Europe (Thrace), and into the twentieth century when the Ottoman sultanate finally collapsed—that informs Eastern European views on Islam.  As one modern Pole, echoing the words of Sobieski, said, “A religious war between Christianity and Islam is once again underway in Europe, just like in the past.”

Whereas Western nations cite lack of integration, economic disparities, and grievances to explain away the exponential growth of terrorism, violence, and sexual assaults that come with living alongside large, resistant-to-assimilation Muslim populations, Eastern nations tend to see only a continuity of hostility.

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. 

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