It’s Nuts !

Nuts About Nuts? Study Shows Your Heart Loves Them, Too
25Apr – by Terra Marquette –

WASHINGTON — If you’re nuts about nuts, a new study gives you more reasons to enjoy the delicious snack to your heart’s content, literally.

Researchers at the American College of Cardiology liken nuts to “natural health capsules,” full of nutrients that may decrease the risk of developing cardiovascular or coronary heart disease. While there have been many other studies on the benefits to consuming nuts, this is the largest of its kind to date to consider the relationship between nut consumption and cardiovascular disease.

Researchers at the American College of Cardiology liken nuts to “natural health capsules,” full of nutrients that may decrease the risk of developing cardiovascular or coronary heart disease.

Nuts used in the study include tree nuts — almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamias, pecans, pine nuts, pistachios and walnuts — and also peanuts. Those standards of the good ol’ PBJ, though officially legumes, are nutritionally quite similar to tree nuts and just as good for your heart health.

Researchers gathered information on 210,000 healthcare professionals over a period of 32 years. Over the course of the study, participants filled out questionnaires every two years, providing information about their medical history, lifestyle and health conditions.

Overall, participants who ate five or more servings of any type of tree nuts or peanuts per week showed a 14% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 20% lower risk of coronary heart disease than those who never consumed nuts. The study also shows an inverse association between consumption of peanuts and walnuts, and stroke risk.

Researchers found a relationship between the participants with the highest nut consumption and a tendency toward better heart health. For specific nuts, walnuts are an excellent choice. Participants who ate walnuts just one or more times per week had a 19% reduction in cardiovascular disease and a 21% reduction in coronary heart disease. Those who ate other tree nuts two or more times per week had a 15% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 23% lower risk of coronary heart disease compared to those who never ate them. Participants who consumed peanuts at least twice a week saw a 13% reduction in cardiovascular disease and a 15% reduction in coronary heart disease.

Researchers say that, while the study was limited to white health professionals, they believe the health advantages would hold true for all ethnicities. They caution that results were based on self-reported questionnaires that did not take into account preparation methods, so errors are inevitable. Despite these study limitations, researchers say the strong relationship between nut consumption and heart health merits additional research.

Dr. Emilio Ros, of the Endocrinology and Nutrition Service at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and a researcher with the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain, wrote about the study in an American College of Cardiology editorial.

“Ideally, further investigations should test the effects of long-term consumption of nuts supplemented into the usual diet on hard cardiometabolic events,” Ros argued. “In the meantime, raw nuts, if possible unpeeled and otherwise unprocessed, may be considered as natural health capsules that can be easily incorporated into any heart-protective diet to further cardiovascular well-being and promote healthy aging.”

The full study was published Nov. 13, 2017 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Advertisements

Silly Season In British Columbia !

Silly Season In British Columbia!

The Socialist Government of BC may not be that competent.

It may be controlled by the Green Party.

It may be the most leftist in BC History .

But who thought it would be the silliest ever?

Oh, Yes, I suspect some of of us did.

The Government’s latest salvo in the Trans Mountain pipeline dispute is a reference to the BC Court of Appeal to test new legislation alleging it has jurisdiction over the movement of heavy oil from Albert as a result of new provincial environment legislation they are proposing. Essentially the Government is asking the court : Do we have such jurisdiction under these circumstances ?

However, it is a real stroke of genius the way the Government has described the question .

Just heavy oil , not all oil is involved.

And then not all heavy oil , just some heavy oil —-

That amount of heavy oil that comes in new pipelines .

The heavy oil in old pipelines is o k.

You get that ? Uh??

How do think the old pipeline feels? And the oil in that pipeline ? Same oil as in the new pipeline yet ignored!

Left out completely , discriminated against!

What an affront to fair play ——

Seriously, The Court of Appeal should reject even hearing such a case. It breaks the silly meter and is outside the realm of common sense let alone the law.

Sections 91(2) and 91(10) of the Constitution say so. Supreme Court of Canada decisions say so. All existing oil pipelines between Provinces have been build under Federal Jurisdiction.

There is no distinction as to the nature of the oil or whether it in in a old or new pipelines .

All pipelines carrying whatever ( light or heavy oil, natural gas etc) between Provinces is under Federal Jurisdiction.

And the real silly is that somehow the existing Trans Mountain pipeline that carries heavy oil between Alberta and BC and was approved under federal Jurisdiction is exempted by the Province’s Action.

More seriously, what the Province is doing is to further discourage investment funds from coming to the province . Who knows when this Government might introduce this or that Legislation and have it sent to the Courts?

And the May 31 Kinder Morgan deadline is to be bypassed since it is unlikely that the Court will hear and render a judgement before then . And , any decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I suspect the added environmental regulations by the Federal Government and the new proposed ones in the last day or so will allow the Court to gently reject the Province’ s action——i.e. sufficient environmental protection is provided with a nod to Federal jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines.

That’s the Canadian Way —-Be Nice !

Meanwhile , for people like me , the B C Government should be called out for the silly Government it is showing itself to be and summarily shown the door.

The Awesome Power Of The State—Let Alfie Go To Rome !

From The National Review

Let Alfie Evans Go to Rome

By THE EDITORS
April 25, 2018 8:13 PM

Alfie Evans, 23 months old, is hospitalized with a rare neurodegenerative disorder. Against his parents’ wishes, his doctors at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool removed him from life support on Monday evening, maintaining that further treatment would be futile. Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome has offered to treat him and arranged for his medical transport, which is on standby. The Italian government has granted him citizenship, clearing legal and administrative hurdles in advance.

Doctors in Liverpool forbid the child to be removed from their watch, however, and British courts have backed them up, holding out the possibility that at some point the parents will be permitted to take him home to die, but batting down the idea that he will ever be allowed to leave the country. The courts have offered no compelling or even plausible reason for blocking his transfer to the Italian hospital. We support his parents, Tom Evans and Katie James, in their resolve to keep the case before the public until Alder Hey corrects course and releases Alfie so they can place him in the hands of medical professionals who will provide care that the Liverpool doctors will not.

To defend their intransigence, which they have repeated in several decisions handed down since December, British judges have merely gestured at the notion that they must supply an argument. For months, they have reiterated that further medical treatment for Alfie would not be in his “best interest.” But if the rest of his life will be as short as they and his Liverpool doctors say, he has little of it to lose even if heroic medical measures went awry. And given the severity of his brain damage, which his parents acknowledge, official pronouncements about his “autonomy” are a non sequitur, as they would be for any two-year-old child in need of medical attention, for that matter. Justice Anthony Hayden of the High Court wrote that artificial ventilation was an assault on Alfie’s “dignity,” as if modern intensive-care units themselves were a barbarity. That doctors in Rome can prolong Alfie’s life and even improve his medical condition may be a long shot, but the assumption that their trying would somehow put him at risk makes little sense at this juncture. Risk of what?

The medical disagreement between Alfie’s doctors and his parents became a legal dispute. It’s now a political debate because the stakes are high and the medical and legal authorities have not answered the question why the parents in concert with a reputable Italian pediatric hospital should be prevented from pursuing treatment for their child. The stakes are high for Alfie and his parents, obviously, but for all of Britain insofar as their case establishes a precedent or reinforces earlier ones. So far, the similarities to the Charlie Gard ordeal in London last year have been glaring: Charlie suffered brain damage; his doctors withheld treatment; his parents objected; two hospitals, including Bambino Gesù, offered to take him. The British courts said no.

In Liverpool, local residents have been gathering outside Alder Hey to demonstrate, in a spontaneous swell of support for Alfie’s parents. Some members of the European Parliament have denounced the U.K. authorities in the strongest terms. Pope Francis, with whom Tom Evans met in Rome last week, has appealed publicly and repeatedly to the U.K. government to let Alfie’s parents “seek new forms of treatment” for him in Italy.

Alfie has been breathing unassisted for two days now, defying the expectations of his doctors, although his mother reports that he’s struggling and that his need for intensive care to resume may be urgent. Mariella Enoc, chief of Bambino Gesù, which is affiliated with the Vatican, flew to Liverpool to intercede in behalf of Alfie and his parents, so far to no avail. We salute and thank the Holy See and the Italian government for stepping up. The U.K. medical and legal establishment appears adamant, but so do Alfie’s parents. So does Alfie himself. The British courts have failed to make their case for barring him from the plane that stands ready and waiting to fly him to Rome. They will either reverse their decision or suffer a permanent loss of credibility.

Germany Can’t Shake Anti Semitism —70 Plus Years After The Holocaust

Britbart Website Reports

by SIMON KENT 25 April, 2018

Jews have been advised not to wear their kippah scullcaps in major German cities after another violent assault that targeted a person wearing the traditional Jewish headpiece.

Josef Schuster, the head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, told broadcaster Radioeins that wearing a kippah is right in principle but increasingly dangerous in practice, so he is advising individuals “against showing themselves openly with a kippah in a big-city setting in Germany, and wear a baseball cap or something else to cover their head instead.”

Schuster added that “our democracy would be at risk” if Germany does not fight anti-Semitism. “This is not only about anti-Semitism — it goes along with racism, it goes along with xenophobia. You need a clear stop sign here.”

The call for Jews to hide signs of their faith follows the assault of Adam Armush, a 21-year-old Israeli Arab who was violently attacked by a 19-year-old Muslim refugee in Berlin capital last Tuesday.

As Breitbart Jerusalem reported, the video of Armush being whipped with a belt while his attacker cries out “Yahudi!” or “Jew” in Arabic quickly went viral. Berlin police identified the attacker as a Palestinian from Syria named Knaan S. who was registered at a refugee home in Brandenburg state outside Berlin, but who most recently was living “out of a suitcase” in the capital.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, condemned the attack. “It depresses me that we have not been able to get a handle on anti-Semitism once and for all,” she told Israel’s Channel 10. “We have a new phenomenon of refugees or people of Arab origin who bring another form of anti-Semitism into the country, but sadly we also had anti-Semitism beforehand,” she said.

Marches are due to be held in the cities of Berlin, Cologne, Potsdam, and Erfur on Wednesday in protest against anti-Semitism, with participants encouraged to wear kippahs in solidarity with the Jewish community.

This is not the first time the safety of Jews in Germany has been questioned.

Just last month it was revealed Berlin recorded a twofold increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes between 2013 and 2017, according to the latest German police figures.

A report in Tagesspiegel said police figures seen by the Berlin newspaper show that 288 crimes classified as anti-Semitic were recorded by the German capital’s police in 2017. This is slightly less than double the 149 crimes recorded in 2013.

Such are the fears from Germany’s Jewish community that in January the German government appointed a special commissioner to address the problem. Although the commissioner’s powers are yet to be defined, the Central Council of Jews welcomed the move, calling it an important signal that their concerns were being addressed.

Dark Chocolate and Brain Health

New research shows there might be health benefits to eating certain types of dark chocolate. Findings from two studies being presented today at the Experimental Biology 2018 annual meeting in San Diego show that consuming dark chocolate that has a high concentration of cacao (minimally 70% cacao, 30% organic cane sugar) has positive effects on stress levels, inflammation, mood, memory and immunity.

While it is well known that cacao is a major source of flavonoids, this is the first time the effect has been studied in human subjects to determine how it can support cognitive, endocrine and cardiovascular health.

Lee S. Berk, DrPH, associate dean of research affairs, School of Allied Health Professions and a researcher in psychoneuroimmunology and food science from Loma Linda University, served as principal investigator on both studies.

“For years, we have looked at the influence of dark chocolate on neurological functions from the standpoint of sugar content — the more sugar, the happier we are,” Berk said. “This is the first time that we have looked at the impact of large amounts of cacao in doses as small as a regular-sized chocolate bar in humans over short or long periods of time, and are encouraged by the findings. These studies show us that the higher the concentration of cacao, the more positive the impact on cognition, memory, mood, immunity and other beneficial effects.”

The flavonoids found in cacao are extremely potent antioxidants and anti-inflammatory agents, with known mechanisms beneficial for brain and cardiovascular health. The following results will be presented in live poster sessions during the Experimental Biology 2018 meeting:

Dark Chocolate (70% Cacao) Effects Human Gene Expression: Cacao Regulates Cellular Immune Response, Neural Signaling, and Sensory Perception

This pilot feasibility experimental trial examined the impact of 70 percent cacao chocolate consumption on human immune and dendritic cell gene expression, with focus on pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Study findings show cacao consumption up-regulates multiple intracellular signaling pathways involved in T-cell activation, cellular immune response and genes involved in neural signaling and sensory perception — the latter potentially associated with the phenomena of brain hyperplasticity.

Dark Chocolate (70% Organic Cacao) Increases Acute and Chronic EEG Power Spectral Density (μv2) Response of Gamma Frequency (25-40Hz) for Brain Health: Enhancement of Neuroplasticity, Neural Synchrony, Cognitive Processing, Learning, Memory, Recall, and Mindfulness Meditation

This study assessed the electroencephalography (EEG) response to consuming 48 g of dark chocolate (70% cacao) after an acute period of time (30 mins) and after a chronic period of time (120 mins), on modulating brain frequencies 0-40Hz, specifically beneficial gamma frequency (25-40Hz). Findings show that this superfood of 70 percent cacao enhances neuroplasticity for behavioral and brain health benefits.

Berk said the studies require further investigation, specifically to determine the significance of these effects for immune cells and the brain in larger study populations. Further research is in progress to elaborate on the mechanisms that may be involved in the cause-and-effect brain-behavior relationship with cacao at this high concentration.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Cite This Page:

Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center. “Dark chocolate consumption reduces stress and inflammation: Data represent first human trials examining the impact of dark chocolate consumption on cognition and other brain functions.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 24 April 2018. .

So Long California, Sayonara, New York

From WSJ

So Long, California. Sayonara, New York

Blue states will lose millions of people in the years to come—and they aren’t ready.

By Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore
April 24, 2018 7:18 p.m. ET

As the Trump tax cut was being debated in December, California’s Gov. Jerry Brown called the bill “evil in the extreme” and fumed that it would “divide the hell out of us.” He’s right—but in the end, this change could be good for all the states.

In the years to come, millions of people, thousands of businesses, and tens of billions of dollars of net income will flee high-tax blue states for low-tax red states. This migration has been happening for years. But the Trump tax bill’s cap on the deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT, will accelerate the pace. The losers will be most of the Northeast, along with California. The winners are likely to be states like Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

For years blue states have exported a third or more of their tax burden to residents of other states. In places like California, where the top income-tax rate exceeds 13%, that tax could be deducted on a federal return. Now that deduction for state and local taxes will be capped at $10,000 per family.

Consider what this means if you’re a high-income earner in Silicon Valley or Hollywood. The top tax rate that you actually pay just jumped from about 8.5% to 13%. Similar figures hold if you live in Manhattan, once New York City’s income tax is factored in. If you earn $10 million or more, your taxes might increase a whopping 50%.

About 90% of taxpayers are unaffected by the change. But high earners in places with hefty income taxes—not just California and New York, but also Minnesota and New Jersey—will bear more of the true cost of their state government. Also in big trouble are Connecticut and Illinois, where the overall state and local tax burden (especially property taxes) is so onerous that high-income residents will feel the burn now that they can’t deduct these costs on their federal returns. On the other side are nine states—including Florida, Nevada, Texas and Washington—that impose no tax at all on earned income.

Last week the two of us, along with co-author Jonathan Williams, released the 11th annual edition of “Rich States, Poor States,” a report published by the American Legislative Exchange Council. The report ranks each state’s economic outlook using a range of variables. One is domestic migration: Are the U-Haul trucks and vans moving people in, or moving them out? Over the past decade, about 3.5 million Americans on net have relocated from the highest-tax states to the lowest-tax ones.

Since 2007 Texas and Florida (with no income tax) have gained 1.4 million and 850,000 residents, respectively, from other states. California and New York have jointly lost more than 2.2 million residents. Our analysis of IRS data on tax returns shows that in the past three years alone, Texas and Florida have gained a net $50 billion in income and purchasing power from other states, while California and New York have surrendered a net $23 billion.

Now that the SALT subsidy is gone, how bad will it get for high-tax blue states? Very bad. We estimate, based on the historical relationship between tax rates and migration patterns, that both California and New York will lose on net about 800,000 residents over the next three years—roughly twice the number that left from 2014-16. Our calculations suggest that Connecticut, New Jersey and Minnesota combined will hemorrhage another roughly 500,000 people in the same period.

Red states ought to brace themselves: The Yankees are coming, and they are bringing their money with them. Meanwhile, the exodus could puncture large and unexpected holes in blue-state budgets. Lawmakers in Hartford and Trenton have gotten a small taste of this in recent years as billionaire financiers have flown the coop and relocated to Florida. As the migration speeds up, it will raise real-estate values in low-tax states and hurt them in high-tax states.

As far as we can see, the only way for blue states to prevent this coming fiscal bloodbath is to start taking tax competitiveness seriously—and to cut their tax rates in response. Progressives should do the math: A 13% tax rate generates zero revenue from someone who leaves the state for friendlier climes.

Blue states ought to be able to lower their taxes and spending dramatically without jeopardizing vital services. Despite its shrinking tax base, New York spends nearly twice as much on state and local government per person ($16,000) as does economically booming Tennessee ($9,000).

Alas, delusional liberal interest groups want blue states to respond to the Trump tax cuts by soaking their rich residents even more. If that happens, our best advice to blue-state residents is simple: Git while the gittin’s good.

Mr. Laffer is chairman of Laffer Associates. Mr. Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. They are co-authors of the ALEC annual report “Rich States, Poor States.”

Appeared in the April 25, 2018, print edition.

This Article Tells You All You Need To Know About The New York Times

POSTED ON APRIL 24, 2018 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN MEDIA BIAS from The Powerline Website

THE NEW YORK TIMES CORRECTS

On Saturday, the New York Times published an article by technology reporter Nellie Bowles on Campbell Brown, a former TV newswoman who now works for Facebook. The article betrays the author’s hostility to conservatism at several points, but what drew attention was this howler:

Once those shows get started, Ms. Brown wants to use Facebook’s existing Watch product – a service introduced in 2017 as a premium product with more curation that has nonetheless been flooded with far-right conspiracy programming like “Palestinians Pay $400 million Pensions For Terrorist Families” – to be a breaking news destination.

Many commentators pointed out that the Palestinian Authority does, indeed, pay pensions to the families of terrorists, and the $400 million figure is correct. Today, the Times ate crow:

An article on Sunday about Campbell Brown’s role as Facebook’s head of news partnerships erroneously included a reference to Palestinian actions as an example of the sort of far-right conspiracy stories that have plagued Facebook. In fact, Palestinian officials have acknowledged providing payments to the families of Palestinians killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis or convicted of terrorist acts and imprisoned in Israel; that is not a conspiracy theory.

That’s a step in the right direction, of course. But note that the correction describes the erroneous Palestinian story as “an example of the sort of far-right conspiracy stories that have plagued Facebook.” In fact, it was the only example. The corrected paragraph now reads:

Once those shows get started, Ms. Brown wants to use Facebook’s existing Watch product — a service introduced in 2017 as a premium product with more curation that has nonetheless been flooded with far-right conspiracy programming — to be a breaking news destination.

If the journalist’s best example of “far-right conspiracy programming” on Facebook turned out to be wrong, why should we believe that Facebook’s Watch is “flooded” with such content? And is there far-left conspiracy programming on Watch, too? Or does the Times believe there is no such thing as a far-left conspiracy theory? Some would say that the Times itself has peddled more than a few such theories.

The New York Times suffers from a deep rot that will take much more than an occasional correction to cure.