Lessons from all democracies

WHO Finds Violence Against Women ‘Remains Devastatingly Pervasive,’ Affecting 1 in 3 Worldwide

‘Cold war-era weapon’: $100bn US plan to build new nuclear missile sparks concern

Lula Is Back — And He Can Save Brazil From Bolsonaro

Butterflies are Disappearing in the Western US

Signs Are Everywhere: Businesses Have Changed Permanently as a Result of the Pandemic

Rethinking Employment in the Biden-Harris Era

Criticizing Public Figures, Including Influential Journalists, is Not Harassment or Abuse

US far-right extremists making millions via social media and cryptocurrency

No Safety Data? No Problem!

Are punitive rules forcing doctors to hide their mental health problems?

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused changes to people’s wellbeing around the world

Not a single case of flu detected by Public Health England this year as Covid restrictions suppress virus

 Criticizing Public Figures, Including Influential Journalists, is Not Harassment or Abuse

As social media empowers uncredentialed people to be heard, society’s most powerful actors seek to cast themselves as victims and delegitimize all critiques.

Glenn Greenwald Mar 10

The most powerful and influential newspaper in the U.S., arguably the west, is The New York Times. Journalists who write for it, especially those whose work is featured on its front page or in its op-ed section, wield immense power to shape public discourse, influence thought, set the political agenda for the planet’s most powerful nation, expose injustices, or ruin the lives of public figures and private citizens alike. That is an enormous amount of power in the hands of one media institution and its employees. That’s why it calls itself the Paper of Record. One of the Paper of Record’s star reporters, Taylor Lorenz, has been much discussed of late. That is so for three reasons. The first is that the thirty-six-year-old tech and culture reporter has helped innovate a new kind of reportorial beat that seems to have a couple of purposes. She publishes articles exploring in great detail the online culture of teenagers and very young adults, which, as a father of two young Tik-Tok-using children, I have found occasionally and mildly interesting. She also seeks to catch famous and non-famous people alike using bad words or being in close digital proximity to bad people so that she can alert the rest of the world to these important findings. It is natural that journalists who pioneer a new form of reporting this way are going to be discussed. The second reason Lorenz is the topic of recent discussion is that she has been repeatedly caught fabricating claims about influential people, and attempting to ruin the reputations and lives of decidedly non-famous people. In the last six weeks alone, she twice publicly lied about Netscape founder Marc Andreessen: once claiming he used the word “retarded” in a Clubhouse room in which she was lurking (he had not) and then accusing him of plotting with a white nationalist in a different Clubhouse room to attack her (he, in fact, had said nothing). She also often uses her large, powerful public platform to malign private citizens without any power or public standing by accusing them of harboring bad beliefs and/or associating with others who do. (She is currently being sued by a citizen named Arya Toufanian, who claims Lorenz has used her private Twitter account to destroy her reputation and business, particularly with a tweet that Lorenz kept pinned at the top of her Twitter page for eight months, while several other non-public figures complai that Lorenz has “reported” on their non-public activities). It is to be expected that a New York Times journalist who gets caught lying as she did against Andreessen and trying to destroy the reputations of non-public figures will be a topic of conversation. The third reason this New York Times reporter is receiving attention is because she has become a leading advocate and symbol for a toxic tactic now frequently used by wealthy and influential public figures (like her) to delegitimize criticisms and even render off-limits any attempt to hold them accountable. Specifically, she and her media allies constantly conflate criticisms of people like them with “harassment,” “abuse” and even “violence.” That is what Lorenz did on Tuesday when she co-opted International Women’s Day to announce that “it is not an exaggeration to say that the harassment and smear campaign I have had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life.” She began her story by proclaiming: “For international women’s day please consider supporting women enduring online harassment.” She finished it with this: “No one should have to go through this.” Notably, there was no mention, by her or her many media defenders, of the lives she has harmed or otherwise deleteriously affected with her massive journalistic platform. That is deliberate. Under this formulation, if you criticize the ways Lorenz uses her very influential media perch — including by pointing out that she probably should stop fabricating accusations against people and monitoring the private acts of non-public people — then you are guilty of harassing a “young woman” and inflicting emotional pain and violence on her (it’s quite a bizarre dynamic, best left to psychologists, how her supporters insist on infantilizing this fully grown, close-to-middle-aged successful journalist by talking about her as if she’s a fragile high school junior; it’s particularly creepy when her good male Allies speak of her this way). This is worth focusing on precisely because it is now so common among the nation’s political and media elite. By no means is this tactic unique to Lorenz. She did not pioneer it. She is just latching onto it, exploiting it, in order to immunize herself from criticisms of her destructive journalistic misconduct and to depict her critics as violent harassers and abusers. With this framework implanted, there is no way to express criticisms of Taylor Lorenz’s work and the use and abuse of her journalistic platform without standing widely accused of maliciously inciting a mob of violent misogynists to ruin her life — that’s quite a potent shield from accountability for someone this influential in public life. But this is now a commonplace tactic among the society’s richest, most powerful and most influential public figures. The advent of the internet has empowered the riff-raff, the peasants, the unlicensed and the uncredentialed — those who in the past were blissfully silent and invisible — to be heard, often with irreverence and even contempt for those who wield the greatest societal privileges, such as a star New York Times reporter. By recasting themselves as oppressed, abused and powerless rather than what they are (powerful oppressors who sometimes abuse their power), elite political and media luminaries seek to completely reverse the dynamic. During Hillary Clinton’s ill-fated 2016 presidential campaign, one of the most common tactics used by her political and media supporters was to cast criticisms of her (largely from supporters of Bernie Sanders) not as ideological or political but as misogynistic, thus converting one of the world’s richest and most powerful political figures into some kind of a victim, exactly when she was seeking to obtain for herself the planet’s most powerful political office. There was no way to criticize Hillary Clinton — there still is not — without being branded a misogynist. A very similar tactic was used four years later to vilify anyone criticizing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — also one of the world’s richest and most powerful figures — as she sought the power of the Oval Office. A major media theme was that she was being brutally assaulted by Sanders supporters who were using snake emojis to express dissatisfaction with what they believed was her less-than-scrupulous campaign, such as relying on millions of dollars in dark money from an anonymous Silicon Valley billionaire to stay in the race long after the immense failure of her campaign was manifest, and attempting to depict Sanders as a woman-hating cretin. When Warren finally withdrew from the race after having placed no better than third in any state including her own, Rachel Maddow devoted a good chunk of her interview with the Senator and best-selling author to exploring the deep trauma she experienced from the snake emojis. When Joe Biden announced his choice of Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretary and various news outlets reported that she had spent the last several years collecting many millions of dollars in speaking fees from the very Wall Street banks over whom she would now exercise immense power, the reporters who disclosed these facts and those expressing concern about them were accused of sexism. Somehow, a narrative was peddled under which one of the multi-millionaire titans of the global neoliberal order was reduced to a helpless victim, while the far less powerful people questioning the ethics and integrity of her conduct became her persecutors. One of the many ironies of these tawdry attempts to shield the world’s most powerful people from criticism is that they fundamentally rely upon the exact stereotypes which, in prior generations, had been deployed to deny women, racial minorities and LGBTs fair and equal opportunities to ascend to powerful positions. Those who purport to be supporters of Lorenz speak of her not as what she is — a successful and wealthy professional woman in her mid-30s who has amassed a large amount of influence and chose a career whose purpose is supposed to be confronting powerful people — but instead as a delicate, young flower, incapable of withstanding criticisms: Steve Peoples @sppeoples This is dangerous and disgusting. Someone asks for help after suffering online harassment, and this man mocks her in prime time — using her full name five separate times — in an obvious attempt to encourage more harassment. We are better than this. Sara Pearl @skenigsberg Tucker Carlson opened his show tonight by comparing @TaylorLorenz to Meghan Markle, @MichelleObama and @HillaryClinton saying she has “one of the best lives in the country.” https://t.co/fqt0QICNbq March 10th 2021 394 Retweets2,278 Likes In the paradigm peddled by Maddow, Elizabeth Warren was instantly transformed from an outspoken, intrepid Harvard Law Professor, consumer advocate, and influential lawmaker into a vulnerable abuse victim. Anonymous Sanders supporters were the ones wielding the real power and strength in this warped and self-serving framework. In order to shield themselves from the same scrutiny and accountability every other powerful public figure receives, they’re resuscitating the most discredited and antiquated myths about who is strong and weak, who requires protection and special considerations and who does not. No discussion of this tactic would be complete without noting its strong ideological component: its weaponization for partisan aims. Say whatever you’d like about journalists like Laura Ingraham or Mollie Hemingway or Briahna Joy Gray or political figures such as Kellyanne Conway, Susan Collins or Kirstjen Nielsen. Have at it: the sky’s the limit. Let it all fly without the slightest concern for accusations of misogyny, which, rest easy, will not be forthcoming no matter how crude or misogynistic the attacks are. One also need not worry about accusations of anti-Semitism if one opposes the landmark quest of Bernie Sanders to become the first Jewish president or even expresses bitter contempt for him. No bigotry allegations will be applied to critics of Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Richard Grenell, or Ben Carson. This transparent tactic is part-and-parcel of the increasingly ideological exploitation of identity politics to shield the neoliberal order and its guardians from popular critique. Step lightly if you want to criticize the bombing of Syria because the Pentagon is now led by an African-American Defense Secretary and Biden just promoted two female generals. No objecting to the closeness between the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street banks because doing so is a misogynistic attempt to limit how women can be paid. Transportation policy should be questioned only in the most polite tones lest one stand accused of harboring anti-gay animus for the department’s Secretary. The CIA and FBI celebrate its diverse workforce in the same way and for the same reason that gigantic corporations do: to place a pretty but very thin veneer on the harmful role they play in the world. The beneficiaries of this tactic are virtually always the powerful, while the villains are their critics, especially when those critics are marginalized. It is a majestic reversal of the power dynamic. Those who invoke this shield on their own behalf do so by claiming that they receive abusive and bigoted messages and even threats online. I have no doubt that they are telling the truth. In the age of social media, anyone with a significant public platform will inevitably be subjected to ugly vitriol. Often the verbal assaults are designed for the person’s gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and other aspects of their demographic identity in order to be as hurtful as possible. In response to Lorenz’s use of International Women’s Day to elevate her suffering to center stage, Guardian reporter Julia Carrie Wong described her own personal experience to argue that verbal condemnations from angry readers can cause “serious mental anguish and made me fear for my own safety and that of my family.” She acknowledged that “it’s not physical or material harm” and is “not legal persecution,” but, she said, it is nonetheless “a very real, constant, negative force in my life, something I have to think about all the time, and that sucks.” It is hard to dispute Wong’s claims. Not only do studies demonstrate that a barrage of online criticism can adversely affect one’s mental health, I can speak from personal experience — vast, sustained, and intense personal experience — about what it is like to be the target of coordinated, bigoted and threatening attacks because of one’s reporting. When Jair Bolsonaro was in the middle of his successful presidential candidate in 2017, he hurled an anti-gay slur at me using his Twitter account to his millions of followers. In 2019, he publicly claimed my marriage to my husband and our adoption of two Brazilian children were fraudulent, done only to prevent my deportation. Does it take any imagination to envision what my email inbox and online messages were like for months after each of those episodes? From the time my colleagues and I at The Intercept Brazil began our multi-part exposé about corruption on the part of high-level Bolsonaro officials in mid-2019, my name trended on Brazilian Twitter on a virtually daily basis for weeks if not longer, accompanied by demands for my deportation and arrest. Much of the vitriol was anti-gay in theme, to put that mildly. My husband, one of the only openly gay members of Congress in the history of Brazil, and I have received a non-stop deluge of very specific death threats aimed at our family and our children. As a result of that, none of us — him, me or our two children — have left our home in almost two years without armed security and an armored vehicle. And it all culminated in the attempt to criminally prosecute me last year on over 100 felony counts. That is most definitely not the first time I’ve encountered such criticisms and attacks, nor, I say with confidence, will it be the last. I was unable to leave Brazil for almost a year after returning from Hong Kong where I met Edward Snowden and published our first reports on the NSA due to publicly and privately expressed threats from U.S. officials of criminal prosecution. I’m so far from unique in any of this. These kinds of recriminations are inherent to journalism (when done well), to confronting those in power, to insinuating yourself into controversial and polarizing political debates and controversies. Journalists love to laud themselves for “speaking truth to power” but rarely think about what that actually means. If you do journalism well, then you’re going to make people angry, and if you’re making people angry, then they are going to say unpleasant and hurtful things about you. If you’re lucky, that is all that will happen. The bigger your platform, the more angry people there will be, and the angrier they will be. The more powerful the people angered by your work, the more intense the retaliation. That is what it means to call someone “powerful”: they have the capacity to inflict punishment on those who impede them. Death threats like this one arrive in my inbox every week at least. When a news event related to our work transpires that angers large numbers of people — such as this week’s news that the criminal convictions of former President Lula da Silva have been invalidated and his political rights restored, thus rendering him eligible to run against Bolsonaro in 2022 — those threats and vituperative messages intensify greatly and we are forced to enhance our security measures. Anyone who cannot endure that, or who does not want to, is well-advised not to seek out a public platform and try to become an influential figure who helps shape discourse, debate and political outcomes, and especially not to become a reporter devoted to exposing secret corruption by powerful factions. It would obviously be better if all of that did not happen, but wishing that it would stop is like hoping it never rains again: not only is it futile, but — like rain — there are cleansing and healthy aspects to having those who wield influence and power have to hear from those they affect, and anger. But with that cost, which can be substantial, comes an enormous benefit. It is an immense privilege to have a large platform that you can utilize to shape the society around you, reach large numbers of people, and highlight injustices you believe are being neglected. Those who have that, and who earn a living by pursuing their passion to use it, are incredibly fortunate. Journalists who are murdered or imprisoned or prosecuted for their work are victims of real persecution. Journalists who are maligned with words are not, especially when those words come not from powerful state officials but from random people on the internet. And even when such criticisms do emanate from powerful officials, it still does not rise to the level of persecution: when Jair Bolsonaro hurled an anti-gay slur at me online and then maligned our family at a press conference, it was not even in the same universe of difficulty as being threatened with prosecution by the U.S. or Brazil governments or receiving credible death threats. I’ve said plenty of critical things about him as well. That is why I always found it so preposterous to treat Trump’s mean tweets about Chuck Todd or Jim Acosta like some grave threat to press freedom. Imprisoning Julian Assange for publishing documents is a dangerous press freedom attack; mocking Wolf Blitzer’s intellect is not. And if the U.S. President’s mean words about journalists do not constitute an attack on press freedom — and they do not — then surely the same is true of random, powerless people online. That is why I do not consider myself remotely victimized: I chose to do this work knowing what it would entail if I did it well, and I continue to do it, rather than do something else, because it is a price worth paying. It is fulfilling and gratifying work to me, and I see the recriminations as proof of its efficacy. Not everyone will have that same calculus, which is why different people make different choices for their lives based on their assessments of the costs and benefits inherent in them, but the framework is essentially the same for everyone. What I ultimately find most repellent and offensive about this incessant self-victimization from society’s most powerful and privileged actors is the conceit that they are somehow unique or special in the treatment they receive, as if it only happens to people like them. That is the exact opposite of reality: everyone with a public platform receives abuse and ugly attacks, and there are members of every faction who launch them. If you have any doubts about that, go criticize Kamala Harris and see what kind of staggeringly bigoted and hateful abuse you get back in return. Whenever this tactic is hauled out in defense of neoliberal leaders — to claim that Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive, or that Corbyn supporters are, or that Trump supporters are: basically that everyone is guilty of abusive behavior except neoliberals and their loyal followers — the real purpose of it becomes clear. It is a crowd-control technique, one designed to build a gigantic moat and drawbridge to protect those inside the royal court from the angry hordes outside of it. Last week, I participated in a debate on Al Jazeera about online censorship with the liberal British journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. She was quite a reasonable and candid advocate of the need for online censorship and I found the discussion consequently illuminating, particularly because she was so blunt about what she believes is the real problem that online censorship needs to solve. Listen to what she said: Precisely. “It’s not like it used to be.” The problem is that “this is not civilized discourse” to them because “it’s often coming from some of the least educated and most angry.” That’s why online censorship is needed. That’s why media figures need to unite to demonize and discredit their critics. It is because people like Taylor Lorenz — raised in Greenwich, Connecticut, educated in a Swiss boarding school, writing on the front page of The New York Times — now hears from “the least educated and most angry.” This is the societal crisis — one of caste — that they are determined to stop. Taylor Lorenz and her media allies know that she is more privileged and influential than you are. That is precisely why they feel justified in creating paradigms that make it illegitimate to criticize her. They think only themselves and those like them deserve to participate in the public discourse. Since they cannot fully control the technology that allows everyone to be heard (they partially control it by pressuring tech monopolies to censors their adversaries), they need to create storylines and scripts designed to coerce their critics into silence. Knowing that you will be vilified as some kind of brute abuser if you criticize a New York Times reporter is, for many people, too high of a price to pay for doing it. So people instead refrain, stay quiet, and that is the obvious objective of this lowly strategy.

The benefits of the Mediterranean diet pass on to the families of patients who follow it

Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (Italy), March 9, 2021

People living with a patient undergoing an intensive weight loss treatment also benefit from this therapy. This has been demonstrated by a team of researchers from the Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM-Hospital del Mar) along with doctors from Hospital del Mar and the CIBER on the Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition (CIBERObn), in collaboration with IDIAPJGol, the Pere Virgili Health Research Institute (IISPV), IDIBELL, IDIBAPS and the Sant Joan de Reus University Hospital. The study has been published in the journal International Journal of Obesity.

The study analysed data from 148 family members of patients included in the weight loss and lifestyle programme PREDIMED-Plus (PREVencióDIetaMEDiterranea Plus) over a two-year period. The researchers analysed whether these people also indirectly benefited from the programme, as they were not enrolled in the study and did not receive any direct treatment. PREDIMED-Plus is a multicentre study in which a group of patients follow an intensive weight reduction programme based on the Mediterranean diet and a plan promoting physical activity.

Weight loss despite not being included in the programme

The relatives (three out of four were the patient’s partner and the rest were children, parents, siblings or had some other degree of kinship), lost an average of 1.25 kg of weight during the first year of the programme, compared to the relatives of the patients in the control group (those who did not follow the intensive treatment proposed by PREDIMED-Plus). This rose to almost 4 kg in the second year. These figures were better in cases where the family member ate with the patient and, above all, when it was the patient themselves who cooked.

The treatment, aimed at achieving weight loss in people with obesity and high cardiovascular risk by following the Mediterranean diet, “Achieved effects beyond just weight loss in the patient, and this extended to their family environment”, explains Dr. Albert Goday, the principal investigator on the project, head of section in the Department of Endocrinology and Nutrition at Hospital del Mar, researcher in the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group at the IMIM-Hospital del Mar and a CIBERobn researcher. “The effect was contagious, in this context it was, fortunately, a beneficial ‘contagion’, resulting in weight loss and improved dietary habits.” Dr. Goday points out that “among the many possible dietary approaches to weight loss, the one based on the Mediterranean diet is the most easilt shared within a family environment.”

According to Dr. Olga Castañer, the final author of the study and a researcher in the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group at the IMIM-Hospital del Mar and CIBERobn, the good results can be explained “By an improved diet, since the same contagious effect was not observed in terms of physical activity among the patients and their relatives.”

Family members also showed increased commitment to the Mediterranean diet, according to a questionnaire assessing adherence to the dietary patterns of this regimen. But the same was not true in terms of physical activity. As Dr Castañer points out, “In addition to weight loss, there was greater adherence to the Mediterranean diet, which has intrinsic health benefits, such as protection against cardiovascular and neurodegenerative risks.”

The results of the study “Demonstrate the contagion effect, the halo effect, of a treatment programme in the relatives of participants involved in an intensive weight loss procedure, as well as increased adherence to the Mediterranean diet”, stresses Dr. Albert Goday. “The beneficial effect of the programme on one member of the family unit can be extended to its other members, which is extremely significant in terms of reducing the burden of obesity on the public health system”, he explains. The family members not only lost weight but also improved the quality of their diet.

Effect of the programme on patients

The study also analysed the results of the PREDIMED-Plus programme in 117 patients. Compared to participants in the control group, they lost 5.10 kg in the first year of intervention rising to 6.79 kg in the second year. They also significantly increased their physical activity levels, as well as their adherence to the Mediterranean diet.

CBD reduces plaque, improves cognition in model of familial Alzheimer’s

Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, March 9, 2021

A two-week course of high doses of CBD helps restore the function of two proteins key to reducing the accumulation of beta-amyloid plaque, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease, and improves cognition in an experimental model of early onset familial Alzheimer’s, investigators report.

The proteins TREM2 and IL-33 are important to the ability of the brain’s immune cells to literally consume dead cells and other debris like the beta-amyloid plaque that piles up in patients’ brains, and levels of both are decreased in Alzheimer’s.

The investigators report for the first time that CBD normalizes levels and function, improving cognition as it also reduces levels of the immune protein IL-6, which is associated with the high inflammation levels found in Alzheimer’s, says Dr. Babak Baban, immunologist and associate dean for research in the Dental College of Georgia and the study’s corresponding author.

There is a dire need for novel therapies to improve outcomes for patients with this condition, which is considered one of the fastest-growing health threats in the United States, DCG and Medical College of Georgia investigators write in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.

“Right now we have two classes of drugs to treat Alzheimer’s,” says Dr. John Morgan, neurologist and director of the Movement and Memory Disorder Programs in the MCG Department of Neurology. One class increases levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which also are decreased in Alzheimer’s, and another works through the NMDA receptors involved in communication between neurons and important to memory. “But we have nothing that gets to the pathophysiology of the disease,” says Morgan, a study coauthor.

The DCG and MCG investigators decided to look at CBD’s ability to address some of the key brain systems that go awry in Alzheimer’s.

They found CBD appears to normalize levels of IL-33, a protein whose highest expression in humans is normally in the brain, where it helps sound the alarm that there is an invader like the beta-amyloid accumulation. There is emerging evidence of its role as a regulatory protein as well, whose function of either turning up or down the immune response depends on the environment, Baban says. In Alzheimer’s, that includes turning down inflammation and trying to restore balance to the immune system, he says.

That up and down expression in health and disease could make IL-33 both a good biomarker and treatment target for disease, the investigators say.

CBD also improved expression of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2, or TREM2, which is found on the cell surface where it combines with another protein to transmit signals that activate cells, including immune cells. In the brain, its expression is on the microglial cells, a special population of immune cells found only in the brain where they are key to eliminating invaders like a virus and irrevocably damaged neurons.

Low levels of TREM2 and rare variations in TREM2 are associated with Alzheimer’s, and in their mouse model TREM2 and IL-33 were both low.

Both are essential to a natural, ongoing housekeeping process in the brain called phagocytosis, in which microglial cells regularly consume beta amyloid, which is regularly produced in the brain, the result of the breakdown of amyloid-beta precursor protein, which is important to the synapses, or connection points, between neurons, and which the plaque interrupts.

They found CBD treatment increased levels of IL-33 and TREM2 — sevenfold and tenfold respectively.

CBD’s impact on brain function in the mouse model of early onset Alzheimer’s was assessed by methods like the ability to differentiate between a familiar item and a new one, as well as observing the rodents’ movement.

People with Alzheimer’s may experience movement problems like stiffness and an impaired gait, says Dr. Hesam Khodadadi, a graduate student working in Baban’s lab. Mice with the disease run in an endless tight circle, behavior which stopped with CBD treatment, says Khodadadi, the study’s first author.

Next steps include determining optimal doses and giving CBD earlier in the disease process. The compound was given in the late stages for the published study, and now the investigators are using it at the first signs of cognitive decline, Khodadadi says. They also are exploring delivery systems including the use of an inhaler that should help deliver the CBD more directly to the brain. For the published studies, CBD was put into the belly of the mice every other day for two weeks.

A company has developed both animal and human inhalers for the investigators who also have been exploring CBD’s effect on adult respiratory distress syndrome, or ARDS, a buildup of fluid in the lungs that is a major and deadly complication of COVID-19, as well as other serious illnesses like sepsis and major trauma. The CBD doses used for the Alzheimer’s study were the same the investigators successfully used to reduce the “cytokine storm” of ARDS, which can irrevocably damage the lungs.

Familial disease is an inherited version of Alzheimer’s in which symptoms typically surface in the 30s and 40s and occurs in about 10-15% of patients.

CBD should be at least equally effective in the more common, nonfamilial type Alzheimer’s, which likely have more targets for CBD, Baban notes. They already are looking at its potential in a model of this more common type and moving forward to establish a clinical trial.

Plaques as well as neurofibrillary tangles, a collection of the protein tau inside neurons, are the main components of Alzheimer’s, Morgan says. Beta-amyloid generally appears in the brain 15-20 years or more before dementia, he says, and the appearance of tau tangles, which can occur up to 10 years afterward, correlates with the onset of dementia. There is some interplay between beta amyloid and tau that decrease the dysfunction of each, Morgan notes.

The Food and Drug Administration is scheduled to make a ruling by early June on a new drug aducanumab, which would be the first to attack and help clear beta amyloid, Morgan says.

1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D supports bone marrow stem cell proliferation

Cang-zhou Central Hospital (China), March 1, 2021

According to news originating from Hebei, People’s Republic of China, research stated, “Osteoporosis (OP) is a common clinical geriatric disease. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) are widely applied in bone engineering. 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25-(OH) 2D) deficiency involves in geriatric disease.”

Our news journalists obtained a quote from the research from Cangzhou Central Hospital, “However, its effects on BMSCs differentiation and osteoporosis have not yet been elucidated. An OVX-induced OP rat model was constructed and treated with 10 mu M 1,25-(OH) 2D followed by analysis of bone mineral density and ALP activity. Rat BMSCs were isolated and divided into control group, OP group, OP rat BMSCs, and VD group (OP rats were injected with 1 mu M 1,25-(OH) 2D) followed by analysis of cell survival by MTT assay, Caspase 3 activity, type I collagen and Osterix expression by Real time PCR, Wnt5 expression by Western blot and TGF-beta secretion by ELISA. The bone density and ALP activity was significantly decreased in OP rats (P < 0.05). 1,25 (OH) 20 injected into OP rats significantly increased bone density and ALP activity (P < 0.05). The survival rate of BMSCs in OP group was significantly decreased and Caspase 3 activity was increased along with downregulated type I collagen and Osterix, TGF-beta secretion and Wnt5 expression (P < 0.05).”

According to the news editors, the research concluded: “Adding 1,25-(OH) 2D to BMSCs cells in OP group could significantly reverse the above changes (P < 0.05). 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D promotes BMSCs proliferation by regulating Wnt5/TGF-beta signaling, promotes differentiation into osteogenesis, increases bone density, and then improves osteoporosis.”

This research has been peer-reviewed.

High-fat diets can cause normal liver tissue to behave like tumor tissue

Flanders Institute of Biotechnology (Belgium), March 10, 2021

Normal, non-cancerous liver tissue can act like tumor tissue when exposed to a diet high in fat, linking diet and obesity to the development of liver cancer. The Laboratory of Cellular Metabolism and Metabolic Regulation headed by Prof. Sarah-Maria Fendt (VIB-KU Leuven Center for Cancer Biology), shows how the livers of mice on a high-fat diet used glucose in a way similar to aggressive cancer cells. This suggests that when the liver is exposed to excess fat, normal tissue could be primed to become cancerous. The study appeared in the journal Cancer Research.

Cancer and obesity

With global rates of obesity and liver cancerincreasing each year, understanding how excess fat availability can drive liver cancerdevelopment is important to understand how the disease starts and how it can be treated. To explore this, Prof. Fendt and her team tested the metabolic changes in liver tissue from mice fed a high-fat diet at an early time point when no tumors were present, and late time point when tumors had formed. They found that before there were any clues that cancer was developing, the liver tissue used glucose the same way that tumors would. This high use of glucose is one of the well-known hallmarks of cancer and is known as the Warburg effect.

After finding these early changes to liver tissue, they investigated what happens when tumors have fully formed. One way they measured this was to test sensitivity to glucose, which is usually cleared away quickly by the body but is impaired in obesity-induced diabetic animals.

Prof. Fendt describes what they found: “Strikingly, mice fed a high-fat diet who had a large tumor burden could remove glucose from their blood as easily as healthy mice despite being diabetic. Using state-of-the-art 13C6-glucose tracing technology, we could observe how glucose molecules are used in cells and tissues, and we found that that tumor tissue breaks down glucose in a consistent way, regardless of whether the mice were fed high-fat or normal diets.”

Alternative pathways

These findings suggest that when cancer cells develop from normal liver cells, their metabolism consistently increases glucose use. Since a high-fat diet causes these changes before cancer is present, this may mean that—in a high-fat diet—non-cancer liver tissue could be more likely to become cancerous.

The team also looked into deeper mechanisms for this effect.

Dr. Lindsay Broadfield, one of the lead authors of the study, says: “We discovered that, before any cancer development, liver tissue exposed to high fat seemed to use an alternative pathway for fat breakdown in a cellular compartment called the peroxisome. Using cancer liver cells, we then confirmed that peroxisome metabolism increased cellular stress and glucose uptake.”

Fat can be used by cells in several ways—for energy, to stimulate growth pathways, or to be stored for later use. The scientists used the Lipometrix lipidomics platform at KU Leuven to see if there was anything unique about the fate of fat in tumor cells and found that the fat species and content in tumor cells were indeed different from non-cancerous liver tissue close to the tumors.

For teens, outdoor recreation during the pandemic linked to improved well-being

North Carolina State University, March 9, 2021

A study from North Carolina State University found outdoor play and nature-based activities helped buffer some of the negative mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic for adolescents.

Researchers said the findings, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, point to outdoor play and nature-based activities as a tool to help teenagers cope with major stressors like the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as future natural disasters and other global stressors. Researchers also underscore the mental health implications of restricting outdoor recreation opportunities for adolescents, and the need to increase access to the outdoors.

“Families should be encouraged that building patterns in outdoor recreation can give kids tools to weather the storms to come,” said Kathryn Stevenson, a study co-author and assistant professor of parks, recreation and tourism management at NC State. “Things happen in life, and getting kids outside regularly is an easy way to build some mental resilience.”

In the survey, conducted from April 30 to June 15, 2020, researchers asked 624 adolescents between the ages of 10 to 18 years to report their participation in outdoor recreation both before the pandemic and after social distancing measures were in effect across the United States. They also asked adolescents about their subjective well-being, a measure of happiness, and mental health.

The findings revealed the pandemic had an impact on the well-being of many teens in the survey, with nearly 52 percent of adolescents reporting declines in subjective well-being. They also saw declines in teens’ ability to get outside, with 64 percent of adolescents reporting their outdoor activity participation fell during the early months of the pandemic. Despite these declines in outdoor activity participation, nearly 77 percent of teens surveyed believed that spending time outside helped them deal with stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We know that a lot of outdoor activities that kids engage in happen during school, in youth sports leagues or clubs, and those things got put on hold during the pandemic,” said the study’s lead author Brent Jackson, a graduate student in the Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology Program at NC State. “Based on our study, they were getting outside less – we think not being in school and having those activities really contributed to that.”

When they broke down recreation by type, they saw participation in outdoor play activities such as sports, biking, going for walks, runs or skating declined by 41.6 percent, nature-based activities such as camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, and paddling dropped by 39.7 percent, and outdoor family activities declined by 28.6 percent. In those early months of the pandemic, about 60 percent of teens said they were able to get outside once a week or less.

“We saw declines in all three types of outdoor recreation participation,” Jackson said. “Nature-based activities had the lowest participation before and during the pandemic, which may point to the need for more access to natural spaces in general.”

Results showed that well-being and outdoor recreation trends were linked, and the negative trends they saw during the pandemic for well-being and participation in outdoor recreation were seen regardless of teens’ race, gender, age, income community type or geographic region. Kids who did not get outside as much saw declines in well-being, but those who got outside both before and during the pandemic were able to maintain higher levels of well-being.

“This tells us that outdoor recreation can promote well-being for kids when it happens, and can potentially take away from well-being when it doesn’t,” Stevenson said.

Teens who had high rates of outdoor play before the pandemic were more resistant to negative changes in social well-being. Those who got outside frequently before the pandemic were more likely to experience a lesser decline in well-being, regardless of participation during the pandemic. And, for teens who were able to play outside or get involved in nature-based activities during the pandemic, their well-being was on par with pre-pandemic levels.

“Kids who were able to continue participating in outdoor play and nature-based activities had subjective well-being levels that were similar to what they were before the pandemic, but kids who weren’t able to participate saw much greater declines,” Jackson said.

The study’s findings also point to strategies to help kids navigate future global stressor events, as well as the importance of ensuring access to outdoor recreation. They help define the risks associated with policies that reduce kids’ ability get outside.

“Going outside and participating in activities that provide exposure to nature, physical activity and safe social interaction during the pandemic were really powerful in terms of improving kids’ resilience,” Jackson said.

Study finds two servings of fish per week can help prevent recurrent heart disease

McMaster University (Ontario), March 8, 2021

An analysis of several large studies involving participants from more than 60 countries, spearheaded by researchers from McMaster University, has found that eating oily fish regularly can help prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk individuals, such as those who already have heart disease or stroke.

The critical ingredient is omega-3 fatty acids, which researchers found was associated with a lower risk of major CVD events such as heart attacks and strokes by about a sixth in high-risk people who ate two servings of fish rich in omega-3 each week.

“There is a significant protective benefit of fish consumption in people with cardiovascular disease,” said lead co-author Andrew Mente, associate professor of research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster and a principal investigator at the Population Health Research Institute.

No benefit was observed with consumption of fish in those without heart disease or stroke.

“This study has important implications for guidelines on fish intake globally. It indicates that increasing fish consumption and particularly oily fish in vascular patients may produce a modest cardiovascular benefit.”

Mente said people at low risk for cardiovascular disease can still enjoy modest protection from CVD by eating fish rich in omega-3, but the health benefits were less pronounced than those high-risk individuals.

The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine on March 8.

The findings were based on data from nearly 192,000 people in four studies, including about 52,000 with CVD, and is the only study conducted on all five continents. Previous studies focused mainly on North America, Europe, China and Japan, with little information from other regions.

“This is by far the most diverse study of fish intake and health outcomes in the world and the only one with sufficient numbers with representation from high, middle and low income countries from all inhabited continents of the world,” said study co-lead Dr. Salim Yusuf, professor of medicine at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine and executive director of the PHRI.

This analysis is based in data from several studies conducted by the PHRI over the last 25 years. These studies were funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, several different pharmaceutical companies, charities, the Population Health Research Institute and the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute.

COVID-19 or something else?

Learn how COVID-19 symptoms compare to other illnesses, and when you should call the doctor.

Harvard University, March 10, 2021

Before 2020, you might not have worried much about a tickle in your throat or a little tightness in your chest. But that’s changed.

Now even slight signs of a respiratory bug might make you wonder if it’s the start of COVID-19, the illness that has become a pandemic.

How do you distinguish one illness from another? It’s complicated.

“Many of the symptoms overlap. For example, it’s very hard for me clinically, as a physician, to be able to look at someone and say it’s COVID-19 or it’s influenza,” says Dr. Ashish Jha, former director of the Harvard Global Health Institute and now dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.

Don’t jump to conclusions if you start to feel sick. Learn the hallmarks of common illnesses and how they differ from COVID-19, so you can take the appropriate action.

COVID-19

COVID-19 is an extremely contagious respiratory illness caused by a type of virus (a coronavirus) called SARS-CoV-2. It’s a cousin of the common cold, but its potential consequences are far more serious: hospitalization, lasting complications, and death.

Hallmarks: Loss of taste and smell (in the absence of nasal congestion), fever, cough, shortness of breath, and muscle aches.

Other potential symptoms: Sore throat, diarrhea, congestion, runny nose, chills, shivering, headache, fatigue, and loss of appetite.

Note: Some infected people don’t have any symptoms of COVID-19, but they’re still contagious.

Influenza

Influenza (flu) is a highly contagious respiratory infection caused by the influenza A, B, or C virus. The U.S. flu season typically lasts from October to March, but flu is present year-round.

Hallmarks: Fever, muscle aches, and cough.

Other potential symptoms: Sore throat, diarrhea, congestion, runny nose, chills, shivering, headache, fatigue, loss of appetite.

Different from COVID-19: Flu usually does not cause shortness of breath.

Common cold

The common cold (viral rhinitis) is an upper respiratory infection that can be caused by any of hundreds of different viruses (including coronaviruses or rhinoviruses). It’s usually mild and resolves within a week.

Hallmarks: Congestion, runny nose, cough, and sore throat.

Other potential symptoms: Fever, muscle aches, and fatigue.

Different from COVID-19: A cold does not cause shortness of breath, body aches, chills, or loss of appetite, and it usually doesn’t cause fever.

Seasonal allergies

A seasonal allergy isn’t a virus; it’s caused when the immune system responds to a harmless non-human substance, like tree pollen, as if it were a dangerous threat. Allergies are typically seasonal, lasting for weeks or months, depending on the allergen in the air (mold is the common allergen in the fall and winter).

Hallmarks: Runny nose, itchy eyes, sneezing, congestion.

Other potential symptoms: Loss of smell from congestion.

Different from COVID-19: Allergies do not cause fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, muscle aches, sore throat, diarrhea, chills, headaches, fatigue, or loss of appetite.

Asthma

Asthma is a chronic lung condition caused by inflammation in the air passages. Airways narrow and make it harder to breathe, which can cause concern that it might be COVID-19. “Asthma can be triggered by a cold or influenza, but it’s a separate condition,” Dr. Jha says.

Hallmarks: Wheezing (a whistling sound as air is forcibly expelled), difficulty breathing, chest tightness, and a persistent cough.

Other potential symptoms: A severe asthma attack can cause sudden, extreme shortness of breath; chest tightness; a rapid pulse; sweating; and bluish discoloration of the lips and fingernails.

Different from COVID-19: Asthma does not cause a fever, muscle aches, sore throat, diarrhea, congestion, loss of taste or smell, runny nose, chills, shivering, headache, fatigue, or loss of appetite.