Healthy adults who take fish oil supplements could be at greater risk of suffering heart attack or stroke for the first time, study finds

Amusing to see conventional wisdom reversed. This is actually not the first finding of ill-effects from fishoil but it is good to see it updated

Healthy adults who take fish oil supplements could be at greater risk of suffering heart trouble for the first time, a study suggests.

As a rich source of omega 3 fatty acids, fish oil is often recommended as a dietary preventive to ward off the development of cardiovascular disease. It is also credited with various other beneficial effects such as easing joint pain.

But new research suggests taking the popular supplement could in fact increase the chances of heart disease and stroke in healthy adults, while reducing the risk in those with a history of disease.

The study - which involved more than 415,000 Britons - looked at the associations between fish oil supplements and new cases of atrial fibrillation, heart attack, stroke and heart failure and death.

They assessed the potential of these supplements on the risk of progressing from good heart health, classed, to the secondary stage of atrial fibrillation, third stage major cardiovascular events such as a heart attack and death.

Nearly a third - 130,365 - of the participants, aged 40-69, said they regularly used fish oil supplements, including a high number of older and White people, and women.

Alcohol intake and the ratio of oily to non-oily fish eaten were also higher, while the proportions of current smokers and those living in deprived areas were lower.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 18,367 developed the abnormal heart rhythm disturbance atrial fibrillation, 22,636 had a heart attack or stroke or developed heart failure, and 22,140 died - 14,902 without atrial fibrillation or heart disease.

Of those who progressed from good heart health to atrial fibrillation, 3085 developed heart failure, 1180 had a stroke, and 1415 a heart attack.

Some 2436 of those with heart failure died, alongside 2088 who suffered stroke, and 2098 following a heart attack, according to findings published in BMJ Medicine.

Regularly use of fish oil supplements had different roles in cardiovascular health, disease progression, and death, the findings indicated.

Those who regularly used them with no signs of disease had a 13 per cent higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation and a five per cent greater risk of stroke.

But among those who had cardiovascular disease at the start, regular use of fish oil supplements reduced the risk of progressing from atrial fibrillation to a heart attack by 15 per cent and from heart failure to death by nine per cent.

The risk of transitioning from good health to heart attack, stroke or heart failure was six per cent higher in women. It was also six per cent higher in non-smokers among fish oil takers.

Meanwhile, the protective effect of these supplements on the transition from good health to death was greater in men (seven per cent lower risk) and older participants (11 per cent lower risk).

Led by Sun Yat-Sen University, China, researchers admit limitations to the study including that dosage and formulation of fish oil was not recorded, which experts suggest could be key to the results.

Nevertheless, they conclude: 'Regular use of fish oil supplements might have different roles in the progression of cardiovascular disease.

'Further studies are needed to determine the precise mechanisms for the development and prognosis of cardiovascular disease events with regular use of fish oil supplements.' It is not the first study to make such conclusions with a Cochrane review of research in 2018 comparing 79 trials finding it made 'little or no difference to risk of cardiovascular events, coronary heart deaths, coronary heart disease events, stroke or heart irregularities'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13445061/Healthy-adults-fish-oil-supplements-heart-attack-stroke.html

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

Why Hitler Loved ‘Social Justice’

In August 1920 in Munich, a young Adolf Hitler delivered one of his first public speeches before a crowd of some 2,000 people.

During his speech, which lasted nearly two hours and was interrupted nearly 60 times by cheers, Hitler touched on a theme he’d repeat in future speeches, stating he did not believe that “ever on earth could a state survive with continuing inner health, if it were not based on inner social justice.”

This was one of the first times Hitler spoke publicly of social justice—perhaps the first time.

In his recent book Hitler’s National Socialism, Rainer Zitelmann makes it clear that “social justice” (soziale Gerechtigkeit) was central to Hitler’s social objectives.

What precisely Hitler meant by “social justice” is not easily understood, so perhaps it’s best first to understand what Hitler did not mean. Hitler was not interested in a state or society that simply treated people equally, or a state that simply left individuals alone.

This would not achieve the social change he sought. Like Karl Marx, Hitler saw the world through power structures, and the prevailing power structures made it too difficult for all Germans to rise, in his view.

Zitelmann makes it clear that Hitler talked a great deal about concepts like social mobility and meritocracy. His speeches contain phrases that talk about a German state “in which birth is nothing and achievements and ability are everything.” Otto Dietrich, Hitler’s longtime press chief, noted that Hitler supported “the abolition of all privileges” and a “classless” state.

To this end, Hitler expressed his desire to “tear down all the social barriers in Germany without compunction,” as he explained in a 1942 conversation with Dutch national socialist leader Anton Mussert.

In other words, privilege was so pervasive in Germany that Hitler would root it out by destroying the entire class structure.

‘Tear Down the Walls which Separate the Classes’

If any of this sounds familiar, it should. Social justice is an idea Americans hear virtually every day. It is praised in universities and advocated during NFL games. We hear the words “social justice” on the lips of politicians and in TV commercials.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that today’s social justice advocates are Nazis. I have no doubt they despise Hitler and his ideas, as we all should. But I am saying today’s social justice advocates share an important trait with Hitler: an obsession with class.

This should come as little surprise. Class is something instrumental in virtually all of the different strains of socialism—communism, national socialism, democratic socialism, Peronism, etc.

In traditional Marxist theory, the capitalist stage of history consists primarily of two classes: the bourgeoisie (the capitalists, who own “the means of production”) and the proletariat (the workers). For Marx, class antagonism was the driving force of history, and his disciples share this view.

Defining social justice is a bit tricky, but you can see baked into the idea the notion that class must be rooted out.

“Social justice is justice in relation to a fair balance in the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society where individuals’ rights are recognized and protected,” Wikipedia explains.

This sounds reasonable. It appeals to our instinctive belief that society should be fair. Who likes “privilege,” after all? Who doesn’t want a more equal society?

Indeed, this is precisely what Hitler emphasized in his speeches: the creation of “equal opportunity” in society. Consider these February 1942 remarks from the Fuhrer:

Three things are vital in any uprising: to tear down the walls which separate the classes from each other in order to open the way for advancement for everybody; to create a general level of life in such a way that even the poorest has the secure minimum for existence; finally to reach the point where everybody can share in the blessings of culture.

A Problem of Means and Ends

In a sense, there’s nothing inherently wrong with many of the ends social justice advocates seek. There’s nothing intrinsically good about “privilege” or wealth concentration. The primary problem is one of means.

Social justice advocates—then and now—tend to seek to resolve what they see as structural inequities in society through illiberal and coercive means. In its most basic form, it means taking from those who have more (the privileged) and giving it to those who have less.

For Hitler, this meant confiscating the property of the wealthiest (most privileged) members of his society: the Jews. Wealth confiscation began in earnest after Hitler issued an order (“Decree for the Reporting of Jewish-Owned Property”) in April 1938 requiring Jews to register their wealth with the state.

Property rights might be the foundation of human prosperity, but they proved of little use to Jews who found themselves obstacles to the Fuhrer’s quest of achieving social justice in Germany.

Such a policy would be illegal in the United States, of course, and something few social justice advocates today would ever support. Yet many have shown an appetite for using the government to “level the playing field” in more subtle ways, including unlawfully allocating federal grants based on race.

Indeed, perhaps the most notable characteristic of social justice today is the illiberal means used to advance it. More than a half century ago, the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek observed the paradox of social justice, which seeks to create a more equal society by treating people unequally:

The classical demand is that the state ought to treat all people equally in spite of the fact that they are very unequal. You can’t deduce from this that because people are unequal you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal. And that’s what social justice amounts to. It’s a demand that the state should treat people differently in order to place them in the same position.… To make people equal a goal of governmental policy would force government to treat people very unequally indeed.

Hayek believed that treating people unequally was baked into the social justice cake, and recent historical events have proven him correct.

Since social justice was central to Hitler’s goals, he could not treat Jews, the bourgeoisie, and other privileged classes like everyone else. Only by abolishing “privilege” could he free the German people, he argued, and advance social progress.

“If we want to build a true national community, we can only do this on the basis of social justice,” he said in one 1925 speech.

Similarly, 21st-century social justice advocates can’t bring about social change by advancing the idea that all people should be treated equally regardless of their race or sex. If you read Robin DiAngelo (author of White Fragility) and Özlem Sensoy, who co-authored the book Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, it’s clear they are not interested in treating people equally.

For DiAngelo, the privileged class in America is white people, all of whom were born “into a racialized hierarchy,” a socio-economic system that is racist and must be dismantled.

“This system of structural power privileges, centralizes, and elevates white people as a group,” says DiAngelo.

Precisely how social equality is to be achieved is unclear, but it’s safe to say DiAngelo does not believe the march toward equity will be achieved by embracing the idea that all humans are unique individuals who deserve equal treatment, or without using the power of the state.

The mistake DiAngelo and many other social justice advocates make is a common one in modern times. They prioritize the ends they seek over the means they use.

The philosopher and FEE founder Leonard Read understood the folly of this approach. This is why, in his 1969 book Let Freedom Reign, Read argued that a “hard look” at the means we use is far more important than the ends we seek:

Ends, goals, aims are but the hope for things to come… not… reality… from which may safely be taken the standards for right conduct…Many of the most monstrous deeds in human history have been perpetrated in the name of doing good—in pursuit of some “noble” goal. They illustrate the fallacy that the end justifies the means.

Hitler, of course, disagreed.

He didn’t worry about means; they were entirely justified (in his mind) by the ends he sought. And his grandiose vision for “social justice” in Germany conveniently came with a perk: it allowed him to use the immense power of the state to “correct” the inequities in German society, which had become a hotbed of resentment and decadence following World War I and years of hyperinflation.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/05/21/why-hitler-loved-social-justice/?omhide=true

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

Are Traffic Signals Necessary?

Traffic calming measures, as we wrote in our last column, have grown popular recently as a way to improve the pedestrian experience. It’s an article of faith that traffic signs and signals also keep pedestrians (and other transportation modes) safe. Yet there’s growing evidence that they make life more dangerous, while increasing congestion, raising costs, and confusing all parties. It turns out that engineering roads through heavy government involvement just strips away the intuition that drivers would otherwise use.

While this notion may seem absurd, there are multiple examples of how traffic signaling does more harm than good.

Highway safety data show that 40% of American car collisions occur at intersections, reports a study in the Journal of Safety Research. One study from New York City found that installing traffic signals caused a 65% spike in collisions.

Countdown timers—which tell pedestrians how long they have to cross a street and when to stop—particularly fail the safety test, the Journal of Safety Research study found. Where green signal countdown timers have been installed, they “appeared to lead [to] an overall increase in rear-end crash risk at intersections” because drivers would speed up more quickly and brake faster when they perceived that they had the unchallenged right-of-way.

There are a few reasons for this. One is the increased complexity that these signals often cause, making driving more hazardous. Ben Ross writes for Greater Greater Washington that at complex intersections, “demands on the driver’s eye and brain increase, and the inevitable moments of inattention do more harm.” This also applies to the allowance of right turns during red lights at some intersections but not others.

Road design is another issue. U.S. roads are designed for high speeds (unlike European ones, which are older and narrower), and this encourages fast driving.

But another issue is more fundamental, and speaks to why social engineering can have negative consequences. Renowned traffic expert Tom Vanderbilt detailed the experience of Drachten, a Dutch town which all but eliminated signs and signals, instead using street design measures to slow traffic. The transformation was the brainchild of traffic engineer Hans Monderman, who questioned signals because they conditioned the driver to follow the letter of the law rather than make their own observations. Dratchen replaced its traffic signals with roundabouts, for example, as well as installing structures that appeared as physical barriers.

“Monderman envisioned a dual universe,” wrote Vanderbilt. “There was the ‘traffic world’ of the highway, standardized, homogenous, made legible by simple instructions to be read at high speed. And there was the ‘social world,’ where people lived and interacted using human signals, at human speeds.”

Drachten began this transformation in 2002, and while overall traffic increased, car crashes dropped in the same period. A similar redesign was performed on London’s Kensington High Street, leading to fewer collisions.

I saw a more organic, anarchic version of this many times during my 1.5-year trip through the Global South. Here, traffic signals are rarer than in the West. Both pedestrian and automobile traffic are high, with motorbikes and mini-buses regularly weaving around each other and around pedestrians.

Some would argue that this is why traffic fatalities are higher in the Global South. I would counter that there are other factors: poor road quality, older vehicles that don’t have modern safety bulwarks, and the fact that there’s just far more pedestrians walking about.

But on a day-to-day basis, a spontaneous order rises in response to the chaos. Because pedestrians occupy the roads, rather than being physically isolated on sidewalks, drivers are alert to them. And because drivers must negotiate space without the help of timed, sanctioned right-of-way rules, they stay more aware of each other, too, navigating slowly.

I saw an example of this at a crowded intersection in Kathmandu, Nepal. There were no lights or signs, so vehicles from all four directions mosied into the intersection, weaving through space as it freed up. It seemed safer, because vehicles coming from any one direction could not just speed through the intersection, as none of them had a green light. And it was most definitely faster, because cars didn’t have to wait their turns lined up at stop signs or red lights.

Kathmandu and other Global South cities lack these signals because they don’t have the money. But that’s another reason why they shouldn’t exist to the extent they do in U.S. cities. Installing electronic signals can cost in the high-6 figures at intersections, and that doesn’t include maintenance costs. Signals are impractical for many cash-strapped and low-traffic American municipalities, especially if they don’t provide obvious safety benefits.

Traffic signs and signals are yet another case of what happens when central planning and paternalism overtake personal decision making. They in fact eliminate a sense of responsibility, causing people to put faith in abstract processes to guide them. As Vanderbilt concludes: “Traffic signs [are] an invitation to stop thinking, to stop acting on one’s own volition. In streets designed to safely handle the actions of the riskiest participants, everyone slips into riskier behavior.”

https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/05/15/are-traffic-signals-necessary/?omhide=true&trk=title

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

Major Pharmacy Chain Settles With Christian Nurse Over Contraceptives Case

CVS Health Corp. settled with nurse practitioner Robyn Strader after she sued the company after it stopped providing religious accommodations regarding “pregnancy prevention services.”

Strader said she had been granted a religious exemption for six years permitting her to not prescribe contraceptives and filed the lawsuit in January 2023 after having been fired following the policy change in 2021, according to the press release. First Liberty Institute, which represented Strader, announced Monday that CVS had agreed to a settlement of which the terms “were not made public.”

“We are thrilled that Robyn was able to reach a resolution with CVS,” Stephanie Taub, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, said in the press release. “We are hopeful that companies across the country will recognize the religious liberty of their employees and work to protect those rights.”

“We can confirm a settlement was reached. We are pleased that this matter has been resolved,” Mike DeAngelis, CVS executive director of corporate communications, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Strader had worked at a CVS Minute Clinic in Texas since 2015 and had been able to send patients requesting contraceptive services to another practitioner either at the same location or nearby, according to the lawsuit. She argued that the company had retaliated against her for her religious beliefs.

Strader’s lawsuit requested that CVS be stopped from enforcing its policy and provide “compensation for past and future pecuniary losses.”

“Respecting the religious beliefs of workers and providing reasonable accommodations is not optional under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. We are pleased for Robyn,” Jonathan Berry, a managing partner at Boyden Gray PLLC, which also represented Strader, said in the press release.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/21/major-pharmacy-chain-settles-with-christian-nurse-over-contraceptives-case/

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

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

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