Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé)

Abstract

Objective To assess the prospective associations between consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of cardiovascular diseases.

Design Population based cohort study.

Setting NutriNet-Santé cohort, France 2009-18.

Participants 105 159 participants aged at least 18 years. Dietary intakes were collected using repeated 24 hour dietary records (5.7 for each participant on average), designed to register participants’ usual consumption of 3300 food items. These foods were categorised using the NOVA classification according to degree of processing.

Main outcome measures Associations between intake of ultra-processed food and overall risk of cardiovascular, coronary heart, and cerebrovascular diseases assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for known risk factors.

Results During a median follow-up of 5.2 years, intake of ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of overall cardiovascular disease (1409 cases; hazard ratio for an absolute increment of 10 in the percentage of ultra-processed foods in the diet 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.20); P<0.001, 518 208 person years, incidence rates in high consumers of ultra-processed foods (fourth quarter) 277 per 100 000 person years, and in low consumers (first quarter) 242 per 100 000 person years), coronary heart disease risk (665 cases; hazard ratio 1.13 (1.02 to 1.24); P=0.02, 520 319 person years, incidence rates 124 and 109 per 100 000 person years, in the high and low consumers, respectively), and cerebrovascular disease risk (829 cases; hazard ratio 1.11 (1.01 to 1.21); P=0.02, 520 023 person years, incidence rates 163 and 144 per 100 000 person years, in high and low consumers, respectively). These results remained statistically significant after adjustment for several markers of the nutritional quality of the diet (saturated fatty acids, sodium and sugar intakes, dietary fibre, or a healthy dietary pattern derived by principal component analysis) and after a large range of sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions In this large observational prospective study, higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with higher risks of cardiovascular, coronary heart, and cerebrovascular diseases. These results need to be confirmed in other populations and settings, and causality remains to be established. Various factors in processing, such as nutritional composition of the final product, additives, contact materials, and neoformed contaminants might play a role in these associations, and further studies are needed to understand better the relative contributions. Meanwhile, public health authorities in several countries have recently started to promote unprocessed or minimally processed foods and to recommend limiting the consumption of ultra-processed foods.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the main cause of death worldwide, representing one third of all deaths globally

https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1451

Washington’s Huawei hypocrisy… US government is instrument of American corporations

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubled down on vilification of Сhinese telecoms giant Huawei as “an instrument of government” suggesting that the company was a national security threat by acting as an agent for Beijing.

Like his boss, President Trump, and many others in Washington, Pompeo seems blind to an alternative glaring reality. The US government is the consummate instrument of American corporations. Its congenital service to corporate profit-making is the real national security risk to American citizens and a global security threat for all people of the world due to the wars that Washington unswervingly pursues on behalf of US corporate interests.

The irony could not be richer. President Trump has banned Huawei from US markets by executive order on the grounds that the company’s smartphones could be spying devices for the Chinese government. This move by a nation whose government espionage agencies were exposed using every US telecom, tech and social media company as a conduit for their global harvesting of private citizens’ data as well as that of foreign heads of state.

Moreover, the White House claim that Huawei is an instrument of Beijing state authorities is a risible form of guilt projection. The Trump administration’s ban on Huawei is nothing more than US government abusing its state power to hamper a Chinese competitor from outperforming American tech corporations. Huawei’s products are reputedly cheaper and smarter than US rivals. Some observers also point out that the Chinese technology is invulnerable to hacking by the American spy agency, the NSA, further adding to its consumer appeal. Outperformed on market principles, the US government takes a legalistic, propagandistic sledge hammer to smash Huawei from the marketplace in order to bestow an unfair advantage to inferior American corporations.

So, just who exactly is being an instrument for whom?

Governments in all nations of course use their legislative, fiscal and policy resources to try to build up key companies for their national economic development. It’s standard practice throughout history and the world over. Governments can use subsidies and grants to boost companies, or tariffs to shield them from foreign competition.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/460667-huawei-corporations-us-interests/

https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1134152332617428999

>>6630180

yeah sure FFS

>>6630192

Pelosi Attacks Facebook As ‘Willing Enabler’ of Russia, Still Owns Up to $1 Million In Company Stock

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) has up to $1 million in Facebook, a company she said on Wednesday was a "willing enabler of Russian interference" in the 2016 election.

Pelosi's sharp criticism of the social media giant was a direct response to its decision to flag an altered video of her as false rather than remove it altogether. She told a local California radio station the decision calls into question whether they "wittingly" conspired with Russians to interfere in the 2016 election.

"We have said all along, poor Facebook, they were unwittingly exploited by the Russians," Pelosi said. "I think wittingly, because right now they are putting up something that they know is false."

"I think they have proven—by not taking down something they know is false—that they were willing enablers of the Russian interference in our election," Pelosi said.

Pelosi has been an investor in Facebook since shortly after its initial public offering on May 23, 2012, when her husband purchased between $100,001 and $250,000 worth of stock, according to financial disclosures.

It has been a good investment for Pelosi. The closing share price of Facebook stock on the date of the initial purchase was $32, a fraction of the $183.50 opening share price Wednesday when Pelosi attacked it as a "willing enabler" of Russia.

In her most recent annual disclosure, covering 2017, the investment in Facebook was valued between $500,001 and $1,000,000.

Though Pelosi is yet to file her disclosure for 2018, required periodic transaction reports show her husband significantly increased his Facebook investment last year.

Reports show two purchases of long-term call options on Facebook stock—the first one valued between $50,001 and $100,000 on July 27, 2018, and then a larger $100,001 to $250,000 purchase on October 9, 2018. Both options expire on January 17, 2020, according to the disclosures.

Advertising information now available on Facebook shows that Pelosi has also been an active user of the social media platform, spending nearly $100,000 to run Facebook ads through her campaign and official office.

Pelosi's office did not respond to an inquiry into whether her husband plans to divest from Facebook.

NetChoice, an association of internet companies including Facebook, objected to Pelosi's "false and over-the-top" accusation.

"Speaker Pelosi's accusation that Facebook is a ‘willing enabler' of Russian interference in our elections is completely false and appears to be an attempt to use an important national discussion for her own political gamesmanship," said Carl Szabo, the group's vice president.

Szabo also said Pelosi's true aim appeared to be "to frighten platforms into removing any content she feels is unflattering."

Facebook has thus far stood firm on its decision not to remove the video of Pelosi, despite objections from both the Democratic leader and two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-attacks-facebook-as-willing-enabler-of-russia-still-owns-up-to-1-million-in-company-stock/

Toomey: Sanctuary Cities ‘Endanger the Public,’ ‘Should Come to an End’

Senator proposes defunding sanctuary jurisdictions

Sanctuary policies pose a threat to public safety, Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) thinks; his new legislation would block them from receiving some federal funds to try to change their minds.

"We've historically relied on common sense and a common sense of duty to protect the public from dangerous criminals," Toomey told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview Wednesday. "Unfortunately, that expectation no longer applies to these cities. So, we've got a bill that would withhold funding that the cities very much like, with the hope that that would begin to change their mind."

Toomey's bill, reintroduced last Thursday, would deny federal grant money to sanctuary jurisdictions, either cities or states. Toomey floated the proposal last year, when it was denied cloture as part of a series of votes on immigration taken by the Senate in a single whirlwind session.

The goal of the proposal, Toomey explained, is to "create a powerful disincentive so that the sanctuary cities would no longer be sanctuary cities." In his view, sanctuary policies endanger the public by permitting illegally resident offenders to roam the streets, rather than deporting them to their home countries.

Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, overseen by a bevy of agencies mostly under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. Under federal law, however, immigration officials can delegate their enforcement authority temporarily to state and local law enforcement, permitting them to help with deportation. Federal officers can also issue detainers, asking local law enforcement to hold on to and eventually hand over individuals whom they have already arrested and subsequently ascertained to be illegally resident.

Sanctuary jurisdictions are those cities and states which refuse to coordinate with federal law enforcement on these immigration functions. An estimated eight states, as well as dozens of cities, fit the bill. Those include a number of counties in Toomey's state of Pennsylvania, as well as the largest city, Philadelphia. (Second-largest city Pittsburgh is not officially a sanctuary city, although Mayor Bill Peduto (D.) has signaled sympathy to the idea.)

"Pennsylvania has seen what happens with sanctuary cities," Toomey said. "They become a magnet for dangerous criminals who are in this country illegally." He argued that illegally resident criminals flock to sanctuary jurisdictions because they know that if they are apprehended, they will not face deportation—that in a sense, city or state officials are on their side in a way that they would not be in non-sanctuary cities or states.

"Why in the world do they want to protect these people when among them are violent criminals?" Toomey said. "That's what we're talking about here: We're talking about people who are being picked up by local law enforcement for a reason. … The idea that we've got to protect these criminals from the consequences of their own prior criminal acts is just unbelievable to me."

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/toomey-sanctuary-cities-endanger-the-public-should-come-to-an-end/

>>6630225

WTF has that got to do with Golan in Syria?

The satanists wanted the golan as it contains Nimrods Fortress, you know where the kiddy raping and eating all started

>>6630285

>>6630285 pb

>>6630360

so it's the poor Syrians who live there and not the Zionists ok go do some research on what nimrod got up to and who he's connected to

>>6630384

yeah stopped watch and all that

Fifth Court in Italy Ruled Cell Phones Cause Cancer

Courts Determine Cellphone Cancer To Be An Occupational Disease

On 30 January, 2019, an Italian Court in the city of Monza, Italy ruled that the Acoustic Neuroma brain tumor of an airport employee was caused by exposure to the radiation from a cell phone he used for over 10 years for his work. The court determined that the tumor has permanently incapacitated him, and ruled it to be an occupational disease. PRESS HERE for the Court’s Decision.

This is the fourth case in which the courts in Italy determined that an Acoustic Neuroma type brain tumor was caused by a cell phone, and the fifth court to make such ruling as in the first case the court decision was appealed and later confirmed by Italy’s Supreme Court. A Summary of the four cases is in the bottom of this article.

The importance of the decision is not only that it’s another Italian Court decision that establishes the link between brain tumors and exposure to Radio-Frequency/Microwave Radiation that is emitted from cell phones, but also by recognizing that if the exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) was necessary for the purposes of work, the Acoustic Neuroma tumor may be considered an Occupational Disease.

http://tapnewswire.com/2019/05/fifth-court-in-italy-ruled-cell-phones-cause-cancer/