Taking some commonly used medications in combination leads to an increased risk of death or brain impairment in over 65s, researchers have found The combined side-effects of commonly-used drugs can increase the risk of death and brain impairment in people over 65, according to a study of more than 13,000 people. Researchers have urged people who are taking a combination of medicines to review their intake with their doctors in light of the findings. The study was part of the Medical Research Council’s Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies project and looked at a specific class of commonly used drugs being taken by people over 65 over a two-year period. “The sort of drugs we’re looking at are used in allergies, depression, cardiac disease, bladder disease, pain relief and sometimes in anti-coagulation, very common drugs, some prescribed, some over the counter,” said Chris Fox, clinical senior lecturer at Norwich Medical School who led the research. The list includes over-the-counter medicines such as Piriton and Nytol, and the anti-depressant paroxetine, used in Seroxat. Fox rated the activity of different drugs on a messenger chemical in the brain on a three-point scale, with 0 for no effect and 3 for a severe effect. The results, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society , showed that around 20% of those people who took a regimen of drugs that scored more than 4 on the scale had died in the two years of the study, compared with only 7% of those not taking any medication in the drug class. “For every extra point scored, the odds of dying increased by 26%,” said Fox. “We found it was a cumulative risk – not just the severity of the blockade but the number of drugs as well.” Ian Maidment , a pharmacist at Kent and Medway NHS & Social Care Partnership Trust, said that many doctors, nurses and pharmacists may not be aware that these medicines have these problems and cited overuse of drugs as one of the factors adding to the cumulative burden on people over 65. “Often you see anti-histamines, which have a high burden, for hay fever and they are continued in the depths of winter when there is snow on the ground. The problem is that someone with dementia can’t say, ‘I don’t need anti-histamine,’ so it’s continued when it’s not needed.” Participants in the study who were taking drugs with a combined score of more than 5 also showed cognitive decline – they scored more than 4% lower in cognitive function tests compared with those who were taking no anticholinergic drugs. “The message here is for doctors to regularly review the medication of your older patients,” said Susanne Sorensen, head of research at the Alzheimer’s Society . “The message to patients is to ask, when you’re given medication, the pharmacist if what you’re buying at the counter has any side-effects and may be bad in combination with the other drugs you take..” Professor David Nutt , president of the British Neuroscience Association and vice-president of the European Brain Council, said that the negative effects of this class of drugs on brain and cardiac function had been known for decades and the latest study reinforced the dangers. Dr Tim Chico , an honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Sheffield, added that all drugs had possible side effects, but the new results should not lead anyone to stop current medications without discussing this with their doctor first. “Before starting any drug, it is important for the doctor and patient to discuss the possible benefits of the treatment, compared with the potential downsides, so that the patient can make an informed decision. As a cardiologist, many of the drugs I use (such as beta-blockers) have been definitely proven to make people with heart disease live longer, so it’s important to balance these proven benefits against the risk of side effects.” Medical research Drugs Health Alok Jha guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Just days after telling her employer she was pregnant, Danniella McClain was made redundant. And the number of similar cases of sexual discrimination is rising Be open, honest, and unapologetic – this is the approach pregnancy manuals advise women to take when informing their employers they are going to have a baby. Most manuals also recognise that this can be one of the most stressful parts of early pregnancy. Danniella McClain, 28, waited until she reached the 13-week milestone and had seen the foetus on a scan before telling her boss. She was anxious, but fairly confident that it would be a straightforward conversation. Within seconds it was obvious the news was unwelcome; within days she was made redundant. After a protracted legal battle, McClain won a claim against her former employer on the grounds that he had subjected her to sex discrimination, related to her pregnancy, when he dismissed her. The case represents a rare legal success in an area of discrimination that often goes unchecked. Although news of large payouts to City executives make occasional headlines, cases involving relatively low-paid women who are either sacked or bullied into resigning are far more common, and yet go to trial far less frequently – usually because the women are unable to afford basic legal advice. McClain’s story is striking because it is such a brazen instance of an employer taking rapid action to dispense with a staff member on hearing news of her pregnancy. McClain came in to work at the London estate agents, Hogarth, where she had been employed for nine months, on a Monday morning in late September 2009, noted that the company’s owner was in a good mood, and decided this was the moment to tell him her news. His response was not what she had expected. “He said: ‘Right, right . . . OK’,” she
Continue reading …
40 people killed and 82 injured after four explosions hit a mosque, market places and a police patrol Four bombs have exploded in Baghdad, killing at least 40 people in the worst violence the capital has seen in months, Iraqi officials said. An American civilian aid specialist working to improve education in Iraq was killed in a separate attack. The violence underscores the fragile nature of the security gains in Iraq at a time when American forces are preparing to withdraw by the end of this year. The first three bombs went off in quick succession in a southwestern Baghdad neighbourhood shortly after 7pm local time on Thursday. One targeted a Shiite mosque, another exploded just outside a popular market, while the third went off inside the market where people were doing their evening shopping ahead of the Muslim weekend, Iraqi police officials said. The officials said 34 people died and 82 others were injured in the three blasts. An official from Baghdad’s Yarmouk hospital confirmed the casualty figures. About an hour later, a parked car bomb targeting a police patrol killed six people, including one policeman and five bystanders in a different neighbourhood in southwestern Baghdad, said hospital officials. There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but Sunni extremists such as al-Qaida in Iraq have been known to target Shiite mosques and Iraqi security forces. It was the worst attack in the capital since a parked car bomb exploded in a northern Baghdad in January, killing 48 people. The American civilian killed earlier Thursday was named as Dr Stephen Everhart.A US state department spokeswoman said: “Dr Everhart was an American citizen who was working in Iraq for an implementing partner of the United States Agency for International Development’s Mission in Iraq. He was killed while working on a project to introduce a new business curriculum to a Baghdad university in a programme supported by the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. “We are saddened by this tragedy and extend our thoughts and prayers to Dr Everhart’s family and loved ones, and to the three other injured victims and their families,” she said. Iraq Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Footage uploaded to YouTube indicates that sympathy more than passion was the motivation behind the famous kiss Fresh video footage appearing to show Vancouver’s famous riot couple seems to end speculation that the picture was faked, and indicates that sympathy more than passion was the motivation behind the kiss that was captured on camera . The footage, uploaded to YouTube, seems to show Australian Scott Jones comforting his girlfriend, Alex Thomas, after she was knocked to the ground by an officer’s riot shield. The photo of the couple, taken by photographer Richard Lam, became a global sensation and was taken as Lam was documenting the riot that began after the hometown Canucks lost ice hockey’s Stanley Cup to the Boston Bruins . The picture became an internet sensation and fuelled speculation that the embrace was staged. The video shows the crowd retreating as the couple find themselves caught in the path of two riot police. Both officers collide with the pair with their shields, knocking them to the ground. The couple appear to be holding up their arms up in defence. The camera moves on, returning to show the man comforting the distraught woman. Jones and Thomas have been inundated with offers to describe the events surrounding the famous kiss and had said they did not want the “extra stress” of media appointments. But they are now believed to have hired celebrity publicist Markson Sparks PR. Jones is an aspiring comedian. “I think for Scott, it’s a tremendous opportunity for him to springboard his acting and standup comedy,” Markson told the Toronto Star . “Overseas people know more about that photo than the Stanley Cup.” He said the couple’s global exposure could be worth a potential $10m. Canada Photography Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Pair, who had been under surveillance since someone they tried to recruit alerted FBI, charged with conspiracy to murder Two men have been arrested for allegedly plotting to attack a military recruiting centre in Seattle with machine guns and grenades, the US justice department has said. Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, also known as Joseph Anthony Davis, 33, of Seattle, and Walli Mujahidh, 32, also known as Frederick Domingue Jr, of Los Angeles, are charged with conspiracy to murder. They had been under surveillance since someone they tried to recruit alerted the FBI, according to an affidavit. The accused were apparently recorded on video discussing their plan. Law enforcement agents then intercepted Abdul-Latif and Mujahidh’s arms transactions and rendered their weapons inoperable. The defendants had initially planned an attack on Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State, but later changed targets. The cooperating individual was told that the attack was planned in retaliation for alleged crimes by US soldiers in Afghanistan, according to an FBI affidavit filed on Thursday. The affidavit said: “Abdul-Latif explained that, in his view, murdering American soldiers was justifiable.” US attorney Jenny Durkan said: “The complaint alleges these men intended to carry out a deadly attack against our military where they should be most safe, here at home.” Todd Hinnen, acting assistant attorney general for national security, said the two men were “driven by a violent, extreme ideology” which had led them to plot the murder of those enlisting in the US armed forces. He added: “This is one of a number of recent plots targeting our military here at home.” Abdul-Latif and Mujahidh are charged with conspiracy to murder officers and employees of the United States, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, and possession of firearms in furtherance of crimes of violence. Abdul-Latif is also charged with two counts of illegal possession of firearms. Durkan said: “This is a sobering reminder of our need to be vigilant and that our first line of defence is the people who live in our community. We were able to disrupt the plot because someone stepped forward and reported it to authorities.” If convicted, the two could face up to life in prison. FBI United States Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …We already covered BNF and Bernie Sanders great new video about the Koch Brothers that’s like a RWNM 101 primer. We write about it often enough on C&L, but it never hurts to continue the discussion of its influence on the media and the people. Readers new into politics may not understand why Conservative messaging is so powerful. If you want to know how this all began—check out this article about The Powell Memo, which was authored in 1971. It set the stage for everything we see today. In 1971, Lewis F. Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months prior to Powell’s nomination by President Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his confirmation to the Court. It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powell’s legal objectivity. Anderson cautioned that Powell “might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice…in behalf of business interests.” Though Powell’s memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy. Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building – a focus we share, though usually with contrasting goals…. read the whole thing. There’s more here.
Continue reading …
Home Retail Group said to be in talks to buy parts of Habitat in a possible £20m deal In the 1960s, Sir Terence Conran started a style revolution with the Habitat chain that helped the nation to shake off postwar austerity. It went on to define “the designer decade” of the 1980s, spawned countless imitators on the high street and became a victim of its own success. The chain could now face an ignominious fate, as part of the group which owns Argos, which has pioneered a different kind of design movement selling sofas for under £200 and £30 wardrobes. Home Retail Group was today said to be in talks to buy parts of Habitat in a deal that could be worth up to £20m. Home Retail declined to comment but is reported to be interested in acquiring some of Habitat’s stores and the rights to use the brand in Britain and an announcement could come as soon as tomorrow morning. Home Retail also owns Homebase and analysts suggested the Habitat brand could be used on products across its stores. “I don’t think this is a marriage made in heaven,” said one analyst. “It’s like jumping into a swimming pool with a lump of concrete tied round your neck. Habitat has never made any money and Home Retail has got enough problems of its own. “In the early days Habitat was interesting, innovative and quite successful but only people with extremely long memories can remember its best days.” Habitat has struggled financially for many years. Although the shops were a breath of fresh air when they arrived on the high street, its clever designs were soon mimicked by cheaper rivals and by the late 80s it was in financial difficulties. Even ownership by Sweden’s wealthy Kamprad family, whose patriarch Ingvar founded Ikea, could not restore its fortunes. Despite owning Habitat for nearly 20 years, they failed to come up with a successful formula and eventually paid restructuring firm Hilco a multimillion pound dowry to take the loss-making business off their hands in December 2009. Indeed while Habitat struggled Ikea marched on to become the UK’s biggest furniture retailer with sales of more than £1bn. Last year profits at Argos fell sharply as moribund consumer confidence put a dampener on sales of homeware and electricals and the group’s chief executive Terry Duddy recently warned that sales of electricals – particularly televisions and video games – had tumbled 20% during the spring. According to analysts at Verdict, the high street downturn has cost the furniture market nearly £2bn in lost sales. Neil Saunders says that back in 2008 it was worth £12.5bn but had withered to £10.7bn by last year; it has stabilised but is still predicted to shrink this year. Despite its woes, Home Retail has a substantial cash pile and is looking for new avenues of growth, having embarked on a number of new initiatives including selling books and children’s clothes. Last week it launched Argos TV, its own home shopping channel. Argos has substantial market share in areas such as furniture, toys and homeware. It already owns household brands including Schreiber, Hygena, Alba and Bush and Chad Valley which it bought following the collapse of Woolworths. In sales terms Habitat is a minnow. While Home Retail turned over more than £4bn last year, at last count Habitat was making a loss of £18.7m on sales of £74.3m in the year to March 2009. Habitat’s performance is thought to have improved on Hilco’s watch as it extricated itself from expensive stores and introduced new products and it is said to have approached private equity firms about a deal. It is unclear how many of its 29 stores Home Retail would be interested in taking on but it is thought to face competition from the French furniture group Conforama reported to be interested in buying the international parts of the chain. Conran has had no involvement with Habitat for many years. Having expanded his business empire to include restaurants and hotels, the 79-year-old’s most recent design brief is a homeware collection for Marks & Spencer which he says is a “serious design project”. “It gives us the chance to produce a truly democratic and British collection, something that I have been aiming to achieve all my working life,” said Conran of the tie-up announced in March. “This is our chance at last.” Retail industry Zoe Wood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Labour leader wants to be free to appoint members, while quota of posts for women will also be abolished In a surprise assertion of his authority over his party, Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has said he would abolish elections to his shadow cabinet, leaving him free to appoint his own top team. The move will end a decades-long Labour tradition that shadow cabinet members are elected by their fellow Labour MPs. Shadow cabinet and senior party figures were informed of Miliband’s plan to end a key plank of internal democracy today. He will address Labour MPs about his plans on Monday evening and expects a secret ballot to be conducted among them. The proposal also has to be formally endorsed by party conference in September. No quota of posts for women in the shadow cabinet will be retained. At present a ballot paper is only valid if at least six votes for women are cast. Miliband’s aides said he would appoint a large number of women as a matter of course. During his leadership campaign, Miliband said he wanted half of the shadow cabinet to be women. Aides said he had taken the step to end the distraction of elections and to make his top team focus on the task of holding the government to account. They believe repeated internal elections make some shadow cabinet members as concerned by their popularity among their colleagues as with their impact on the general public. One spokesman said: “Elections were a legacy from our previous time in opposition and it is a sign that Ed does not want the party to be dragged back to the 80s.” Miliband has also decided not to go ahead with plan for an elected party chair. The announcement comes two days before a Labour national policy forum at which shadow cabinet members are due to report on the progress they have made in renewing party thinking. Some Labour activists say Miliband has not been receiving enough support from his most senior political colleagues, and this puts them on notice they will have to raise their game. Labour MPs voted only in the autumn, following an internal review, not to abolish shadow cabinet elections, but instead to shift from annual to two-yearly elections in an attempt to impose greater stability. Party officials insisted that Miliband’s move did not presage an imminent shadow cabinet reshuffle, or the return of his brother David to frontline politics. The officials also denied that it reflected frustration at the performance of any of his team, or a need to end recent political infighting over issues such as tax and spending. But the move will give Miliband freedom from September to recast the shadow cabinet in his own political image, and promote fresh younger talent currently stuck in the relative obscurity of junior shadow ministerial jobs. He will also be in a position to sack anyone for disloyalty or refusal to co-operate on policy. Although the leader is free to appoint any elected member to any portfolio he chooses, those who do well in the elections believe they have earned the right to be handed the more senior jobs. Despite denials tonight , it is likely that some older figures will agree to stand aside at some point. Ed Miliband Labour Women in politics Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …When The Going Gets Tough, Cantor Gets Going: Cantor Walks Out Of WH Budget Discussions
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Yup, he’s taking the future of this country so seriously …. Eric Cantor pulled out of the debt ceiling talks this morning, citing unbridgeable differences over the Dem insistence on tax hikes as part of a deal, and in his statement, he called on President Obama to step in and resolve the tax issue: Since early May, Vice President Biden has led meetings surrounding the debt limit. The Vice President deserves a great deal of credit for his leadership in bringing us this far. We have worked to find areas of commonality to meet the goal of identifying spending cuts commensurate with or exceeding the amount of the Obama Administration’s request for a debt limit increase. I believe that we have identified trillions in spending cuts, and to date, we have established a blueprint that could institute the fiscal reforms needed to start getting our fiscal house in order. That said, each side came into these talks with certain orders, and as it stands the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases. There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don’t believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue. Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today’s meeting and I believe it is time for the President to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue. Once resolved, we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here. What’s interesting here is that by all appearances the main emerging obstacle to compromise was the demand by Senate Dems that a final deal include some kind of economic stimulus measures, such as infrastructure spending or a payroll tax cut. Republicans spent all day yesterday hammering the Dem demand, arguing that more stimulus was at odds with the Biden-led group’s goal of reducing spending. Nobody should be surprised that Cantor and the Republicans have no real interest in coming up with a bi-partisan agreement. And if you think this was some spur-of-the-moment principled stand Cantor was taking instead of a calculated, coordinated move to force more concessions, I have a bridge to sell you… cheap . But the thing that continually annoys me is that their assumption is that if they keep repeating the same tired talking points, Americans are going to support their games: Alan Blinder, a Princeton economics professor and former Fed vice president, thoroughly debunked the GOP’s claims on Tuesday in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “The GOP Myth of ‘Job-Killing’ Spending.” Blinder writes: The generic conservative view that government is “too big” in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them? Blinder easily knocks down claims that the 2009 federal stimulus—roughly $600 billion in spending and $200 billion in tax cuts—failed to create jobs, pointing to Congressional Budget Office data that shows the net job gain was at least 1.3 million and perhaps as high as 3.3 million. What’s more, Blinder debunks the idea that the federal deficit and the uncertainty that comes with it has caused companies to scale back business investments, which in turn impacts hiring and economic growth. Except such investment soared in the past year, increasing 14.7 percent. Ultimately, Blinder argues for another round of stimulus—specifically, giving businesses that grow their payrolls a tax credit—while calling for a serious long-term deficit reduction package.
Continue reading …West plans to release emergency oil to halt rising petrol and energy prices
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Paris-based International Energy Agency sanctions 60ml barrels to counter shortages but Opec condemns ‘political’ intervention The west has fired a warning shot across the bows of Opec by releasing 60m barrels of “emergency” oil supplies on to the market in an attempt to halt soaring petrol and other energy costs damaging the global economy. Crude prices slumped by $6 a barrel after the International Energy Agency, whose 28 members include Britain and America, unveiled plans to release 2m barrels a day for a month from its emergency reserves to counter shortages created by the conflict in Libya. Delegates from Opec countries immediately accused the Paris-based IEA of “unjustified interference” in global energy markets and said the organisation was “playing politics” with oil. The move, plus new signs of weakness in the world economy, saw early success, with the cost of Brent crude spinning down to $108 compared with a high of $127 in April. Stock markets in London and New York, also fell sharply, with the FTSE 100 down 1.6% at 5683. The gloom was increased by signs that the American economic recovery is slowing amid continued uncertainty over the Greek debt crisis. Paul Watters, a spokesman for the AA, which has campaigned for lower petrol prices as the cost of a litre has risen close to £1.50, said: “Although a dramatic fall in the price of oil throws a lifeline to drivers barely able to afford current pump prices, past experience makes it unlikely that they will see an equally dramatic drop in the price of fuel in the short-term.” It is only the third time in the 37-year history of the IEA that oil has been released in this way and follows repeated calls on Opec to turn on the taps and bring down the price of oil. The agency also acted after swings following the first Gulf war in 1990-91 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The US has pledged to provide half the 60m barrels, reflecting frustration in western governments over high petrol and heating bills pushing up inflation and undermining global economic recovery. Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the IEA, who pleaded last weekend with Russia and Opec to act to curb prices , said that using the strategic reserves was meant to complement promises made by Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries to meet shortages caused by the war in Libya. “I expect this action will contribute to well-supplied markets and to ensuring a soft landing for the world economy.”Opec producers this month failed to reach agreement on increasing output, although Saudi Arabia, the single biggest exporter, later pledged to help out. Saudi Arabia, a US ally, was expecting to win an increase in production quotas at the Opec summit in Vienna but faced combined opposition from tradional hawks such as Iran and Venezuela, along with new ones such as Iraq. some Opec delegates from Iran and two Gulf states said the IEA’s release of emergency stocks was wrong. “I don’t know how to justify this interference in the market,” a delegate from Iran, which currently holds the Opec presidency, told the Reuters new agency on condition of anonymity. Opec delegates from Gulf which had backed the Saudi proposal for higher output, also took issue with the IEA’s action. states said”The oil price hasn’t shot up to $150. There is no reason to do this. The market is not short of supply. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have been raising production, but there have not been many buyers. The IEA is just playing politics with the US,” added one Gulf delegate. Opec member Libya had been exporting about 1.2m barrels a day before the civil war brought the oil industry to a standstill, causing price increases in a market already heated due to higher than expected demand. Total oil stocks in IEA member countries amount to over 4.1bn barrels. Nearly 1.6bn barrels of this are public stocks held exclusively for emergency purposes. The IEA was established in the wake of the 1973 oil price crisis to represent the interests of oil consuming nations. But it has increasingly tried to forge closer links with producing nations and last weekend asked Russia to consider joining its ranks. But while motorists in Britain have been facing record pump prices and household heating costs have risen because gas prices are tied to oil, Carl Larry at the Blue Ocean commodity brokerage in New York said crude values might not fall much further. “This is an economic stimulus … in oil dollars,” he said. “On the other hand I think we have confirmed the bottom of the oil market here at $109 for Brent.” Oil Petrol prices Oil and gas companies Energy industry Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …