Homeless vets with families: An untold part of veterans’ struggles – CWEB.com

Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi, University of California, Los Angeles

In 2010, the Obama administration announced the ambitious goal of ending homelessness among veterans. Over the last year, the number of veterans who are homeless dropped 30 percent in Los Angeles County. Nationwide, veteran homelessness fell by almost 50 percent since 2009.

Yet statistics are only part of the story. What is missing from federal and state statistics, the media and the minds of many Americans, is the story of homeless veteran families.

Through my work as a researcher and physician caring for women and homeless veterans, I see these families. I hear about their struggles to find housing in safe neighborhoods instead of Skid Row, where their children are exposed to violence and drug use.

Overlooking veterans with families

Families are often missed when volunteers head out to count homeless individuals. Veterans with families often stay with friends, known as “doubling up.” Or, forced to fragment, parents send kids to stay with family while they go to a shelter.

Plus, some females who are homeless and the head of their household don’t identify as veterans. They may not be eligible for Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits, or are unclear about available services. Some may not seek care at the VA due to mistrust, harassment or past military sexual trauma.

Providers, policymakers and the public need to understand that homelessness among the families of men and women who have served our nation may be invisible. But it is significant.

Limited studies point to higher rates of veteran family homelessness than expected from the counts. Nineteen percent of families served by Supportive Services for Veteran Familiesin the FY 2015 had at least one child. A study of veterans receiving VA homeless services by Tsai and colleagues showed that nine percent of literally homeless male veterans — those living on the streets or uninhabitable locations — and 18 percent of unstably housed male veterans had children in their custody. A striking 30 percent of literally homeless female veterans, as well as 45 percent of unstably housed female veterans, had children in their custody.

Causes of homelessness

What contributes to homelessness among veteran families?

First, homelessness among women veterans is rising. Eleven percent of military personnel who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) were women, the largest number involved in combat operations in U.S. history.

Women veterans are more likely to be mothers and mothers at a younger age than civilians, and more likely to receive lower income than male veterans.

They face high rates of trauma, especially military sexual trauma, a known risk for homelessness.

And, strikingly, women veterans are up to four times more likely to be homeless than civilian women.

Male veterans returning from OIF/OEF tend to be younger and may have young families. As of 2010, 49 percent of deployed service members had children. They also have a higher prevalence of PTSD, compared to veterans of other wars. This is thought to be associated with an increased risk for homelessness.

To make matters worse, our country is in the grips of an affordable housing crisis. In California, we have only 21 homes available for every 100 extremely low-income households. And every day, families face discrimination searching for housing due to their race or ethnicity, being a veteran or using a voucher.

What homeless veteran families need

These families are at high risk. Decades of research show that children in homeless families are at risk for physical and mental health problems, academic delay and of becoming homeless themselves as adults — creating a second generation of homelessness. Many homeless veteran families are resilient, but face additional stressors of reintegrating into civilian society and coping with parents who may have PTSD and traumatic brain injuries.

Our team has been conducting interviews to understand the needs of veteran families who are homeless. We also formed a work group of recently homeless veteran parents.

We are finding that, although veterans are often satisfied with their own health and mental health services at the VA, many parents feel alone when it comes to their family.

Many veterans are overwhelmed by PTSD and depression, as well as the search to find housing and a job. They worry about the toll on their family. Yet they find few resources for their family within the VA, such as family therapy, and need help finding needed health and mental health care for their spouse and children in the community.

Parents need more help connecting to resources for their families in the community, clearer information about the social services available to veteran families and more emotional support as parents.

Moving forward

We need to change the conversation when we talk about homeless veterans. We need to talk about homeless veteran families.

These families are in our communities, the children are attending public schools, their parents are trying to work multiple jobs or attend college and many receive care in our VA and community clinics.

Within the VA, we need to consider the whole family and provide more connection to the community to help families succeed. At the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System West Los Angeles Medical Center, a new family wellness center will open as a collaborative effort between UCLA and the VA. The center will serve as a hub to strengthen veteran families, through services such as family and couple resilience programs, parenting skills workshops and connection to community services. More efforts are needed to engage families who may need it most.

Beyond the VA, we need enhanced understanding and empathy for veteran families with homelessness within the community. This involves greater understanding of the needs of these children in schools. We should also find ways to help veteran families dealing with PTSD integrate into the community after being homeless.

And most of all, we need to increase access to affordable housing in safe neighborhoods for these families.

The recent wars may seem over for many Americans, but they are far from over for our homeless veteran families. We owe it to them to do better.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences/Investigator at the VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, University of California, Los Angeles

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Can CVS Health Buy BioPharmX Corporation? – CWEB.com

• Corporate health-care deal value surged 37 percent last year, according to a new report  from consulting firm Bain & Company.
• The number of health-care mergers and acquisitions rose 16 percent.
• CVS Health’s planned acquisition of health insurer Aetna was the largest corporate deal of 2017 at $69 billion.

The health-care shopping spree isn’t likely to stop anytime soon.

Corporate deal value surged to $332 billion last year, up 27 percent from $261 billion in 2016, though still below the peak of $432 billion in 2015, according to a  new report  from consulting firm Bain & Company.

What does make BioPharmX unique?

1. Financial Health: Does it have a healthy balance sheet?
2. Management:Have insiders been ramping up their shares to take advantage of the market’s sentiment for BPMX’s future outlook?
3. Other High-Growth Alternatives: BPMX is a high-growth stock you could be holding?

Walgreens  was also reportedly considering acquiring the part of drug distributor  AmerisourceBergen  that it doesn’t already own earlier this year, though  talks  have cooled.  Walmart  and health insurer  Humana  are having  early-stage talks  about strengthening their existing partnership, people familiar with the matter told CNBC.

BioPharmX Corporation  (BPMX) products are sold in CVS Health Pharmacy (NYSE:CVS),

Walgreens, Drugstore.com, GNC (NYSE:GNC), The Vitamin Shoppe, Harris Teeter and many more.

BioPharmX added 3,025 GNC store locations supplying Violet ® iodine, raising its
U.S. retail footprint to more than 7,500 stores. Availability of Violet iodine at GNC is expected to begin in
mid-December. GNC is a leading global specialty retailer of health and wellness products and is devoted to helping its
customers improve the quality of their lives. We believe the addition of GNC stores will accelerate VI2OLET revenue growth in the coming quarters.

Institutional investors currently hold major shares in  BioPharmX Corporation(BPMX) stock. Majority of the recent share have been purchased by Vanguard Investment firm on 5-13-2018

 Institutional Ownership

Institutions own approximately 19.42% of BioPharmX’ shares. Among active positions in the latest quarter, 7 holders increased their positions by a total of 10.8 million shares. This means there is a net increase in ownership of 9.61 million shares, which may suggest that institutions feel bullish about the stock.

 Cash as of March 9, 2018

• Pro-forma cash of $14.2 million
  • $8.6 million as of January 31, 2018
  • $6.7 million in proceeds from warrant exercises after the end of the quarter

 Reverse Split

The company let an already approved reverse split expire.

“Regarding the expired reverse stock split, the company and its shareholders did not feel such an action would be in the best interest of the shareholders once the company was able to bring the company back into compliance with the NYSE American’s continued listing standards. The company is optimistic that it will be in compliance for continued listing standards regarding its share price by the June deadline.”

Institutional ownership trends suggest that the stock is cheap and the insider trading data indicates that insiders are bullish. Technical indicators also suggest that  BioPharmX Corporation  (BPMX)  , is undervalued.  

A potential Buy is very possible for  BioPharmX Corporation by a major Drug chain like CVS or Walgreens Pharmacy.

CWEB Analysts have Reiterate a Buy Rating for  BioPharmX Corporation  (BPMX)    and a Price Target of $7 within 12 months.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

A healthy diet isn’t always possible for low-income Americans, even when they get SNAP benefits – CWEB.com

Lindsey Haynes-Maslow, North Carolina State University

While researching how hard it is for low-income Americans to eat healthy on tight budgets, I’ve often found a mismatch between what people want to eat and the diet they can afford to follow. This made me wonder what eating right costs and how much of this tab gets covered by the largest federal nutrition program, commonly known as SNAP or food stamps.

To find out, I teamed up with Kranti Mulik, an agricultural economist.

MyPlate and SNAP

We based our nutrition assumptions on MyPlate, the federal government’s dietary guidelines, which account for differences according to age and gender. The guidelines spell out what you should eat from five food groups: fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy and protein — including meat, beans, eggs, tofu and other soy-based products, nuts and seeds.

SNAP benefits also vary, based on household income and how many eligible people live in a given household.

These modest benefits, which average about US$1.40 per meal, reduce the number of people who would otherwise go hungry at the end of each month by nearly 30 percent, according to Urban Institute economist Caroline Ratcliffe.

Meal accounting

Conversations around healthy eating often leave out cooking time. But to estimate the monthly shortfall for people living in economic hardship who get SNAP benefits, we took into account not just grocery prices and SNAP benefits but the effort eating home-prepared meals requires.

This includes traveling to stores and shopping for ingredients, as well as prepping, cooking and serving meals and cleaning up afterwards. To estimate this value, economists have used the average U.S. hourly wage rate, multiplying it by the time it takes to prepare meals. They find that labor is worth 40 percent of what Americans spend on food that they eat at home.

For people who rely on SNAP benefits, the labor costs can be daunting. They may not live close to supermarkets or any stores that sell produce. They might not own cars and lack access to transit, and they might lack the basic cooking equipment needed to prepare meals.

The government does not officially bill SNAP as covering everything that beneficiaries spend on food — that’s why the word supplemental is part of the program’s name. In 2016, however, it estimated that Americans could afford to feed a family of four a healthy diet for as little as $588 a month — less than the $649 that a family of four can get at most in SNAP benefits. Remember, this amount excludes the labor of preparing meals.

We calculate that it would take about $1,100 per month, including labor, to keep food on this hypothetical family’s table. According to our calculations, SNAP covers about half — between 43 and 60 percent — of what following a MyPlate diet costs after taking into account the labor required for meal preparation.

For households that purchase only fresh produce, grains, dairy and meat, this shortfall is much bigger than for those buying canned, frozen fruits and vegetables. Serving a meal of freshly steamed broccoli, whole-wheat pasta and roast chicken costs more than heating up canned diced tomatoes and red beans to eat with white rice.

Besides, many breadwinners who have to stretch their food dollars work multiple jobs or have other constraints on their time. For them, every hour spent on meal preparation can amount to an hour’s worth of pay lost.

$600 more per month

Based on our model, we found that a family of four with two adults and two teens or tweens would need to spend more than $600 per month in addition to their SNAP benefits, if they ate only fresh produce, grains, meat and dairy.

That same household would need to spend almost $500 more than the maximum SNAP benefits if they ate a vegetarian diet with a mix of fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables — and derived their protein from tofu and other soy-based products, beans, eggs, nuts and seeds.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Even excluding the labor it takes to put food on the table, that family would need to spend at least $200 monthly on top of its members’ SNAP benefits to consume a healthy diet.

Lindsey Haynes-Maslow, Assistant Professor of Agriculture and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Diet soda may be hurting your diet – CWEB.com

Eunice Zhang, University of Michigan

Artificial sweeteners are everywhere, but the jury is still out on whether these chemicals are harmless. Also called non-nutritive sweeteners, these can be synthetic — such as saccharin and aspartame — or naturally derived, such as steviol, which comes from the Stevia plant. To date, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved six types of artificial and two types of natural non-nutritive sweeteners for use in food.

That’s been great news for those working hard to curb their sugar consumption. Aspartame, for example, is found in more than 6,000 foods worldwide, and about 5,000-5,500 tons are consumed every year in the United States alone.

The American Diabetes Association — the most well-respected professional group focusing on diabetes — officially recommends diet soda as an alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages. To date, seven U.S. municipalities have imposed a sugary beverage tax to discourage consumption.

However, recent medical studies suggest that policymakers eager to implement a soda tax may also want to include diet drinks because these sweeteners may be contributing to chronic diabetes and cardiovascular diseases as well.

Why are these sweeteners calorie-free?

The key to these virtually calorie-free sweeteners is that they are not broken down during digestion into natural sugars like glucose, fructose and galactose, which are then either used for energy or converted into fat.

Non-nutritive sweeteners have different byproducts that are not converted into calories. Aspartame, for example, undergoes a different metabolic process that doesn’t yield simple sugars. Others such as saccharin and sucralose are not broken down at all, but instead are absorbed directly into the bloodstream and excreted in the urine.

Theoretically, these sweeteners should be a “better” choice than sugar for diabetics. Glucose stimulates release of insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar levels. Type 2 diabetes occurs when the body no longer responds as well to insulin as it should, leading to higher levels of glucose in the blood that damages the nerves, kidneys, blood vessels and heart. Since non-nutritive sweeteners aren’t actually sugar, they should sidestep this problem.

Artificial sweeteners, your brain and your microbiome

However, there is growing evidence over the last decade that these sweeteners can alter healthy metabolic processes in other ways, specifically in the gut.

Long-term use of these sweeteners has been associated with a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes. Sweeteners, such as saccharin, have been shown to change the type and function of the gut microbiome, the community of microorganisms that live in the intestine. Aspartame decreases the activity of a gut enzyme that is normally protective against Type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, this response may be exacerbated by the “mismatch” between the body perceiving something as tasting sweet and the expected associated calories. The greater the discrepancy between the sweetness and actual caloric content, the greater the metabolic dysregulation.

Sweeteners have also been shown to change brain activity associated with eating sweet foods. A functional MRI exam, which studies brain activity by measuring blood flow, has shown that sucralose, compared to regular sugar, decreases activity in the amygdala, a part of the brain involved with taste perception and the experience of eating.

Another study revealed that longer-term and higher diet soda consumption are linked to lower activity in the brain’s “caudate head,” a region that mediates the reward pathway and is necessary for generating a feeling of satisfaction. Researchers have hypothesized that this decreased activity could lead a diet soda drinker to compensate for the lack of pleasure they now derive from the food by increasing their consumption of all foods, not just soda.

Together these cellular and brain studies may explain why people who consume sweeteners still have a higher risk of obesity than individuals who don’t consume these products.

As this debate on the pros and cons of these sugar substitutes rages on, we must view these behavioral studies with a grain of salt (or sugar) because many diet soda drinkers — or any health-conscious individual who consumes zero-calorie sweeteners — already has the risk factors for obesity, diabetes, hypertension or heart disease. Those who are already overweight or obese may turn toward low-calorie drinks, making it look as though the diet sodas are causing their weight gain.

This same group may also be less likely to moderate their consumption. For example, those people may think that having a diet soda multiple times a week is much healthier than drinking one case of soda with sugar.

These findings signal that consumers and health practitioners all need to check our assumptions about the health benefits of these products. Sweeteners are everywhere, from beverages to salad dressing, from cookies to yogurt, and we must recognize that there is no guarantee that these chemicals won’t increase the burden of metabolic diseases in the future.

As a physician of internal medicine specializing in general prevention and public health, I would like to be able to tell my patients what the true risks and benefits are if they drink diet soda instead of water.

Legislators considering soda taxes to encourage better dietary habits perhaps should think about including foods with non-nutritive sweeteners. Of course, there is an argument to be made for being realistic and pursuing the lesser of two evils. But even if the negative consequences of sugar substitutes doesn’t sway our tax policy — for now — at least the medical community should be honest with the public about what they stand to lose or gain, consuming these foods.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Eunice Zhang, Clinical Fellow of Preventive Medicine, University of Michigan

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Prostate cancer screening: An expert explains why new guidelines were needed – CWEB.com

Li-Ming Su, M.D., University of Florida

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force has recently updated and modified its controversial 2012 recommendation to abandon routine screening of all men using the prostate cancer screening blood test called the prostate specific antigen or PSA test. The USPSTF is a government task force comprised of members from the fields of primary care and preventive medicine that currently makes evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services.

The updated recommendation is that all U.S. men between the ages of 55 to 69 should consider PSA screening, after discussing the risks and benefits with their doctor. The panel recommended that men older than 70 should not undergo screening.

The 2012 recommendation was of great concern to physicians who treat prostate cancer, survivors of the disease, and those at high risk due to race or hereditary factors.

As a urologist who treats and has cared for prostate cancer patients for 17 years, I witnessed firsthand how the controversies of PSA testing in 2012 led to significant confusion in both physicians and patients alike. The confusion may also have resulted in delay in diagnosis and an increase in the late-stage prostate cancer. A study released May 22, 2018 reported an increase in late-stage incidence and that deaths from prostate cancer had stopped decreasing.

The scope of the problem

The prostate gland, a small organ that is part of the male reproductive system and is situated between the bladder and urethra, is involved with urinary, fertility and sexual function. Cancer of the prostate gland is a result of uncontrolled growth of abnormal prostate cells within the gland. Early prostate cancer in its microscopic stage is commonly associated with no symptoms whatsoever, whereas advanced prostate cancer can spread beyond the prostate, into surrounding lymph nodes, and to the spine and other organs, resulting in pain, suffering and even death.

According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in U.S. men, behind lung cancer. One in 9 men will be diagnosed with the disease in his lifetime and 1 in 41 will die from prostate cancer.

PSA: A helpful but imperfect test

In 1994, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the PSA blood test, in addition to a digital rectal exam, to screen for prostate cancer. The PSA test measures a protein in the bloodstream called prostate-specific antigen that is produced by cells in the prostate gland. Certain conditions of the prostate, including an enlarged prostate, prostate inflammation, infection or prostate cancer can all cause an increase in PSA.

As such, PSA is a prostate-specific test but not necessarily a cancer-specific test. In other words, an elevated PSA does not always indicate the presence of cancer, yet may trigger the need for a prostate biopsy and expose a patient to the potential risks of pain, infection and bleeding only to find that no cancer exists.

Despite this, PSA testing has been invaluable in allowing physicians to detect prostate cancer at an earlier and more treatable stage. If PSA testing were abandoned, as recommended by the USPSTF in 2012, physicians would have to rely solely upon physical examination alone for cancer detection, which would risk detecting the disease too late. This, we feared, would translate into cancers that may already have spread beyond the prostate gland where treatments are far less effective.

To treat or not to treat: A troubling, complex disease

Prostate cancer is a complex disease, not only from a diagnosis, but also from a treatment standpoint. As with many cancers, early detection can be life-saving. But not all prostate cancers are lethal; some grow slowly and will never threaten a man’s life or even health. Determining which cancers are dangerous and therefore require treatment has been a great challenge.

Prior to 2012, widespread PSA screening increased the detection of potentially aggressive prostate cancers, but it also led to the overdiagnosis of slow-growing, nonlethal cancers. Treatment of these less aggressive cancers, although curative, left men with unwanted side effects of treatment, such as erectile and urinary difficulties. Therefore, finding the right group of men who benefit the most from prostate cancer screening and treatment based on age, risk factors and life expectancy is at the root of this controversy.

The screening guidelines change for PSA testing

Prior to the 2012 recommendations by the USPSTF, screening using both the PSA and digital prostate examination was recommended on an annual basis for all U.S. men. Because of concerns about overtreatment, however, a USPSTF panel in 2012 examined the evidence surrounding PSA testing. The panel released its recommendation against routine PSA testing for all men based on a lack of convincing evidence of a survival benefit to widespread PSA testing.

Based on a national survey, there was an immediate 40 percent reduction in PSA testing performed by primary care physicians in the first year after the 2012 recommendation. More concerning, 65 percent of these physicians also stopped performing digital prostate examinations, therefore abandoning any form of prostate cancer screening.

Physicians began to see a disturbing trend. More men diagnosed with prostate cancer had aggressive disease, as well as metastatic cancer that had already spread beyond the prostate gland. In sharp contrast, the introduction and utilization of PSA in the early 1990s resulted in detecting prostate cancer at an earlier and more curable stage with less advanced, incurable disease at diagnosis.

In response to the 2012 recommendation, the American Urological Association performed its own review and determined that:

• The subgroup of men who gain the greatest benefit to routine PSA screening are between the ages of 55 and 69.
• A relaxed screening interval of every two to four years versus annually may reduce the harms of overdiagnosis.
• Patients should have a discussion about their individual risk and the potential benefits of PSA testing with their physician, especially in men with higher than average risk (i.e. African-Americans and those who have many first- and second-degree male relatives with a history of the disease).

In addition, to address the concern of overtreatment, urologists have moved to a more selective approach toward treatment of cancers, especially those that are of low risk of progression and spread.

For such cancers, urologists have begun to increasingly advocate a monitoring strategy called active surveillance and advised treatment only if and when the disease begins to show early signs of growth. These recommendations addressed the concern of overtreatment by reducing the unnecessary and premature exposure of men to adverse treatment-related side effects.

Many state legislatures released their own prostate cancer screening recommendations based upon their unique patient population. For example, the Florida Prostate Cancer Advisory Council (PCAC) recommended that men who are at higher-than-average risk, including African-American men and Caribbean men of African ancestry, be encouraged to get tested as early as age 40. Both populations are present in Florida at a higher percentage than the national average.

Men 55 to 69: Talk to your doctor about PSA testing

The recent revised recommendations included a review of evidence published since 2012. The USPSTF panel concluded that men aged 55-69 years should consider periodic PSA screening, citing a small benefit of reducing death from prostate cancer in this age range. However, the panel discouraged testing in men older than 70 and were unable to make specific recommendations for men at increased risk for prostate cancer based on race and family history.

Although the new USPSTF recommendations more closely align with the national urologic association and most major physician group recommendations, the national group and the Florida advisory council believe that even the current recommendations fall short. They do not address men with especially high risk for prostate cancer as well as healthy men 70 and older, with a greater than 10-year life expectancy, who in our view still benefit from PSA screening.

Based on the new guidelines, I hope that PSA testing will be on the minds of men. I urge them to talk candidly with their physician about whether prostate cancer screening including a PSA test and a prostate examination is right for them based upon their individual risk. The message is clear that the answer is not to stop PSA screening altogether, but to screen smarter and treat smarter based upon each man’s unique circumstance.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Li-Ming Su, M.D., David A. Cofrin Professor of Urologic Oncology and Chair of the Department of Urology, University of Florida

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Amnesty for drug traffickers? That’s one Mexican presidential candidate’s pitch to voters – CWEB.com

Luis Gómez Romero, University of Wollongong

With over 29,000 murders, 2017 was the deadliest year in Mexico since modern record-keeping began. Nearly two-thirds of Mexicans say crime and violence are the biggest problems facing their country.

A main cause of the bloodshed, studies show, is the Mexican government’s violent crackdown on drug trafficking. Launched in 2006 under President Felipe Calderón, this military assault on cartels has left 234,966 people dead in 11 years.

While numerous drug kingpins have been jailed, cartels fractured under law enforcement pressure, competing for territory and diversifying their business. Kidnapping and extortion have surged. Mexico is now one of the world’s most violent places.

Now one presidential candidate in Mexico is hoping to win over voters with a novel response to the country’s security crisis: amnesty for criminals.

Justice not revenge

The idea, first floated by leftist front-runner Andrés Manuel López Obrador in August 2016, is undeveloped and quite likely quixotic. López Obrador has yet to even indicate precisely what benefit the Mexican government would get in exchange for pardoning felons.

Still, as a law professor who studies drug policy, I must give López Obrador some credit for originality. His three competitors have mostly frustrated voters this campaign season by suggesting the same tried-and-failed law enforcement-based strategies.

López Obrador, founder and leader of Mexico’s MORENA Party, is a rabble-rousing politician who delights in challenging the status quo. In this, his third presidential bid, he has on several occasions suggested that both members of organized crime groups and corrupt politicians could be pardoned for their crimes.

When pressed for details on the amnesty plan, López Obrador has simply responded that “amnesty is not impunity” or that Mexico needs “justice,” not “revenge.”

Former Supreme Court Justice Olga Sánchez Cordero, López Obrador’s pick for secretary of the interior, has offered a few additional hints about the plan. She says that voters should think of amnesty not as a security policy but as a kind of transitional justice. It would be an instrument used to pacify Mexico.

The opportunity would be time-limited. Criminals would lose their immunity after a specific date if they have not met certain conditions — though these conditions remain undefined. It would also exclude serious crimes such as torture, rape or homicide.

All presidential pardons would need to be approved by Congress, in accordance with the Mexican Constitution.

Amnesty in Colombia

Sound vague? That’s because it is.

López Obrador says that his amnesty idea is still in development, and that his team will work with religious organizations, Pope Francis, United Nations General Secretary António Guterres, Mexican civil society groups and human rights experts to develop “a plan to achieve peace for the country, with justice and dignity.”

Colombia offers one example of how amnesty can be used as an instrument for peace.

In 2016 the Colombian government signed an accord with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, ending the Marxist group’s violent 52-year rebellion. In exchange for laying down their weapons, FARC fighters were offered protection from prosecution for political crimes committed during the conflict.

The amnesty law is extremely controversial. Colombian conservatives and the United Nations alike have criticized it for prioritizing the rights of guerrillas over those of their victims. Colombia’s peace process has also been fraught by delays, flare-ups of violence and political opposition.

Still, according to the Conflict Analysis Resource Center, a think tank, conflict-related deaths among both civilians and combatants dropped over 90 percent in 2016.

Would amnesty work in Mexico?

Mexico is not Colombia.

López Obrador is proposing amnesty in a different conflict carried out by radically different actors — drug kingpins, corrupt politicians and security forces who for 11 years have waged war with virtual impunity.

It’s unclear, for example, why drug traffickers would abandon their US$40 billion illicit industry — which supports around 500,000 jobs in Mexico — in exchange for a preemptive pardon from authorities.

It is also difficult to reconcile López Obrador’s vows for honest government with his proposal to pardon corruption, though he has committed to finishing all ongoing investigations into public officials accused of corruption.

López Obrador claims to seek a new “moral constitution” for Mexico. He maintains that forgiveness is necessary to construct a “república amorosa” — “loving republic” — in which Mexicans “live under the principle that being good is the only way to be joyful.”

A simple expectation

Mexicans don’t feel joyful right now.

According to a recent IPSOS poll, 89 percent of Mexicans believe the country is on the wrong track. Almost 70 percent disapprove of President Enrique Peña Nieto’s performance.

Journalist and historian Héctor Aguilar Camín has described voters’ current mood as “melancholic.” Rampant corruption, government repression and bloody violence have made them skeptical of politics. But, as Aguilar Camín says, people also need desperately to believe that change is possible.

This discontent has given López Obrador a virtually unbeatable lead in the lead-up to the July election.

To paraphrase the prominent Mexican-American Univision reporter Jorge Ramos, all Mexicans want from their next president is to keep them from being killed. So they’re open to unusual ideas.

During two presidential debates, the only candidate other than López Obrador to propose a radical new crime-fighting tactic is Governor Jaime “El Bronco” Rodríguez, an independent from Nuevo Leon state. He promised “to cut off the hands” of corrupt politicians and criminals, a suggestion that left moderator Azucena Uresti — and most of the country — aghast.

The Mexican Constitution prohibits punishment with mutilation and torture.

Electoral advantages of ambiguity

Only López Obrador, with his amnesty suggestion, has questioned whether aggressive law enforcement should even be the core tenet of Mexican security policy.

His competitors have attacked the idea, calling it “madness” and “nonsense.” Some accused López Obrador of being “a puppet of criminals.”

Alfonso Durazo, whom López Obrador’s would nominate to be Mexico’s secretary of security, believes that an amnesty law could end the “cycle of war” in Mexico by setting in motion a process of national reconciliation.

Meanwhile, to actively combat crime, López Obrador says he would merge the police and the military into one unified national guard under direct presidential command.

Maybe forgiveness and justice is what Mexico needs. But, for now, presidential pardons seem like little more than a hollow campaign promise. As Mexican pundit Denise Dresser has put it, López Obrador’s amnesty plan is merely “a blank page on the table, with multiple scriveners working on it.”

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Luis Gómez Romero, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory, University of Wollongong

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Young blood: magic or medicine? – CWEB.com

David Irving, University of Technology Sydney

IN DEPTH: In this longer essay, David Irving and Alison Gould explore our cultural obsession with young blood and whether there’s any scientific evidence that transfusions of it can delay the ageing process.

Ben Franklin famously wrote: “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”. What he didn’t mention, despite being 83 years old, was a third, almost inevitable eventuality: ageing.

Depending on when in history and where on the planet you look, ageing is variously considered desirable — bringing with it wisdom and status — or as something to be feared, eliminated, or at least delayed as long as possible.

In the 16th to 18th centuries, Western societies believed old age was a time of considerable worth. But, since the 19th century, we have sought ways to eliminate or minimise the effects of ageing.

Read more:
The search to extend lifespan is gaining ground, but can we truly reverse the biology of ageing?

Even in the time of Herodotus (the 5th century), there were stories of a “Fountain of Youth” located far away in the land of the Ethiopians, whose waters would bring youth and vigour to those who drank from it.

Blood is a potent symbol of life and of death. It is hardly surprising, then, that this incredible fluid is linked to the search for eternal youth in literature, legend, magic and medicine.

Recent scientific studies have claimed, almost vampire-like, that transfusions of blood from teenagers can help delay or reverse the ageing process. Where do these claims come from? Do they stack up? And how long will it be before we have the power to stave off what now is inevitable?

The first blood transfusion from one human to another is reported to date from 1492, for Pope Innocent VIII.

There is some discussion as to whether this was an attempt at a blood transfusion as we understand it today, or some other form of administration of blood (such as oral), given that the theory of circulation of blood was first published in 1628, some 150 years later.

Sources from 1873 stated that:

All the blood of the prostrate old man should pass into the veins of a youth who had to yield up his to the Pope.

But earlier reports, from 1723, were less specific:

Three ten-year-old boys died because blood had been taken from their veins … in an attempt to cure the Pope.

Whatever the truth of the treatment, the pope did not recover, and neither did the boys. Here, at what is arguably the start of transfusion history, we can already see the lure of the belief in the power of young blood.

Fast forward to 2017, and the reputation of “young blood” is moving into the world of big business.

A company called Alkahest, based on work by Tony Wyss-Coray, a neurobiologist studying Alzheimer’s disease at Stanford University, is spruiking the results of a trial where plasma from young donors (aged 18-30) was transfused into patients with dementia.

Eighteen patients aged between 54 and 86 with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease were enrolled in the trial. They were infused with plasma (or placebo, in a control group) twice a week for four weeks.

Thankfully the trial was more successful than Pope Innocent VIII’s treatment. None of the patients showed any ill-effects, but neither did they show any improvement in tests of thinking ability. They did, however, demonstrate some improvement in tests that assessed their daily living skills.

Read more:
From animal experiments to saving lives: a history of blood transfusions

At almost the same time, controversial trials by a company named Ambrosia (“food of the Gods” depicted as conferring immortality) are transfusing plasma from people aged 16-25 into people aged 35-92.

Despite the experimental nature of this treatment, participants are paying US$8,000 each to be included in the trial, for which there is no control group.

These factors make it virtually impossible to interpret the results, because people in the trial may “feel better” merely through having paid money for a treatment they believe is going to work.

The results of the study so far were presented by Jesse Karmazin at the Recode technology conference in Los Angeles in mid-2017. Ambrosia’s scientists examined the levels of various molecules, believed to be predictive of cancer or Alzheimer’s disease, in the blood of people who had been treated.

They found that those who had been treated with young blood had lower levels of several proteins known to be involved in disease, namely carcinoembryonic antigens (which increase in cancer patients) and amyloid (which forms plaques in the brain in Alzheimer’s disease patients).

However, the long-term significance of these changes is unclear.

The science of stealing youth

Science has come a long way since Pope Innocent VIII, so what has led these modern scientists to try what appears to be a modern version of a very similar experiment?

The roots of both these companies lie in experiments in “parabiosis” (from Greek par meaning alongside, and bios meaning life) — a technique that dates back to the 1864 physiologist Paul Bert.

Bert surgically spliced animals together in his lab, so that two animals shared a single blood supply. This grizzly practice provides an opportunity to find out how soluble blood factors affect various bodily functions.

A group at Stanford University, led by Thomas Rando, and including Irina Conboy, found in 2005 that when they joined the bodies and circulations of old and young mice, the muscle and liver cells in the old mice were able to regenerate as well as those in their younger counterparts.

Several experimental avenues led the researchers to conclude that the factor involved was circulating in the blood, although its identity was not known.

Read more:
Dream of regenerating human body parts gets a little closer

In 2007, Tony Wyss-Coray analysed the plasma proteins of patients with Alzheimer’s disease along with those from healthy people over a number of years. He found that levels of proteins in the blood change with age, some increasing, others decreasing.

His doctoral student at the time, Saul Villeda, looked at effects of parabiosis on the brain and found that the old mice in the pairs enjoyed more brain connection, and the brains of the young mice physically deteriorated.

But it was hard to test how well these brains worked in practice, because measuring an old mouse’s ability to find its way through a maze is difficult when it is physically attached to a young mouse, who may be leading the way!

There are other problems with the interpretation of parabiosis experiments. Old animals have access to the effects of younger organs, and their brains may also benefit from the environmental enrichment of being paired with a younger animal.

The search was on for what factor or factors may be responsible for the dramatic effects seen in parabiosis experiments, and to find if their rejuvenating effects could be replicated without the inconvenience of sharing a circulatory system. There are a few molecular suspects so far.

A protein known as GDF 11 is one contender for the title of “youth protein”. In 2013, researchers Amy Wagers and Richard Lee found that this protein from the blood of young mice can reverse the symptoms of heart failure in older mice. A year later they showed that GDF 11 appeared to act on skeletal muscle stem cells and enhance muscle repair.

Read more:
What can go wrong in the blood? A brief overview of bleeding, clotting and cancer

Other studies have disagreed, suggesting that GDF 11 in fact increases with age and inhibits muscle repair. There are several technical reasons why these studies differ, and further studies may shed light on the role of GDF 11 and similar proteins.

In 2014, researchers Saul Villeda, Tony Wyss-Coray and their team found that exposing an old mouse to young blood can decrease apparent brain age. The effects were seen not only at the molecular level, but also in the structures of the brain, and in several measures of learning and memory.

In this case, the effects were controlled by a specific protein in the brain known as Creb (cyclic AMP response binding element), although the stimulating factor in the blood was not identified.

The development and control of the brain involves numerous molecular signals, and a recent study has found yet another link between young blood and brain development. A protein in the brain, Tet2, declines with age, but mice whose brains have been given a boost of
Tet2 are able to grow new brain cells and they improve at mouse-learning tasks.

Such a boost in Tet2 can be provided by the presence of young blood because in these experiments, old mice who are joined to young mice in a parabiosis have an increase in Tet2 in their brain. This provides yet another clue to the mechanism by which young blood acts on the brain.

Youth proteins vs elder proteins

While old mice show benefit from transfusions of young mouse blood, the opposite is also true: young mice show signs of ageing when exposed to their elder’s blood. It appears there are not just “youth proteins” present in young blood, but also “elder proteins” in the blood of older animals.

In 2016, Irina Conboy’s research team used a blood exchange technique between old and young mice, without surgically joining them. The results of this method would be easier to translate into a human medical setting than parabiosis, as it resembles exchange transfusions that are already used medically.

Read more:
I’ve always wondered: does anyone my age have any chance of living for centuries?

When they received old blood, the muscle strength of young mice decreased, and the growth of their brain cells slowed down.

A protein known as B2M (beta-2-macroglobulin) may be involved in this process, although it does not appear to be elevated with age-possibly acted on by another signal from older blood.

Hanadie Yousef at Stanford University has identified a protein called VCAM1 that increases with age and causes signs of ageing when injected into young mice. What’s particularly interesting is that in her studies, these effects can be blocked by an antibody to VCAM1.

Quest for targeted therapies

So, where does this lead us today? Can teenagers full of young blood rest safely from elderly vampiric super-villains?

It seems that, rather than being the stuff of myth and magic, there are indeed factors in the blood that change with age: some that increase, some that decrease. Research has started to discover how some of these may work at a cellular level in muscles, organs and in particular, the brain, as we age.

One day these discoveries may lead to rational and targeted therapies for a variety of conditions.

What is certain is that human plasma contains a vast array of active molecules, many of which are already in medical use. Donated plasma has been used for decades to fight disease, control bleeding and help with certain chronic neurological disorders.

Fortunately for us all, plasma from people of all ages can be used in these treatments.

Dr Alison Gould, Scientific Communications Specialist for the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, co-authored this article.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

David Irving, Adjunct Professor, University of Technology Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Flat Earthers vs climate change sceptics:  why conspiracy theorists keep contradicting each other – CWEB.com

Gareth Dorrian, Nottingham Trent University and Ian Whittaker, Nottingham Trent University

Flat Earthism and the idea that human activity is not responsible for climate change are two of the most prevalent conspiracy theories today. Both have been increasing in popularity since the late 20th century. Currently, 16% of the US population say they doubt the scientifically established shape of the Earth, while 40% think that human-induced climate change is a hoax. But proponents of one of these theories are not necessarily proponents of the other, even though both are often motivated by a common mistrust of authority. In fact, they regularly contradict one another.

Flat Earthers, for example, tend to disbelieve organisations such as NASA on the shape of Antarctica — or indeed, that there is a southern hemisphere at all. Yet the president of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton, is quite convinced — presumably at least in part thanks to information from NASA — that climate change is happening and espouses a fairly conventional view on the subject.

Former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci (dismissed by president Trump after ten days in office), meanwhile, believes that the Earth is in fact round, but does not believe in anthropogenic climate change, as he made clear in an interview with CNN.

Such selective reasoning is common among conspiracy theorists who often lack consistency with one other. Despite this, the media, celebrities and even politicians regularly make broad comparisons between climate change scepticism, Flat Earthism and other conspiracy theories.

Fabricated data?

In the field of global climate change, scientific bodies often are accused, even by those in power, of fabricating data. But such criticism is often deeply flawed. Take those sceptics, for example, who believe that climate change is occurring, but because of natural — rather than man-made — causes. If one argues that data has been fabricated to show warming where there is none, one cannot then also imply that warming is occurring after all, but naturally. Either there is warming or there is not. Similarly, Flat Earthers who state that images showing Earth’s curvature are due to the shape of a camera lens, themselves believe in a disc which by definition has a curved edge.

Indeed, one of the few commonalities which exist between all major conspiracy theories is that somehow scientists and governments are involved in a grand conspiracy for reasons unknown.

A major part of the scientific anthropogenic climate change argument is that there is an increase in temperature extremes in both summer and winter. Evidently, a Flat Earth model cannot support this; in fact, the most accepted Flat Earth model, which maintains that the sun rotates in a non-variable circular orbit over the flat disk, implies that there should be no seasons at all, let alone multi-decadal seasonal extremes due to climate change. Nevertheless, to quote Shenton:

Climate change is a process which has been ongoing since (the) beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in worldwide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age.

In this instance, the president of the Flat Earth Society is correct. Anthropogenic climate change sceptics, on the other hand, are often willing to accept the science behind the Earth’s natural cycles, which they blame — instead of human activity — for the world’s weather woes. Clearly, we again find an implicit difference of opinion between a Flat Earth model, and a non-anthropogenic climate change one.

It is also clear that many climate change sceptics believe in the (approximately) spherical Earth, even if only subconsciously, by their use of scientifically accepted global maps when discussing data — not to mention when calling it “global” warming.

And what about aliens?

If governments and scientists are so untrustworthy and steeped in corruption, then why would one believe them on any issue? Where does the line of trust actually fall? Why would a person who mistrusts governments and scientists on the shape of the Earth, not hold the same politicians and scientific organisations similarly bogus on the issue of climate change? Or alien abductions, chem trails, or anything else?

Read more:
I watched an entire Flat Earth Convention for my research — here’s what I learnt

But the problem isn’t likely to go away any time soon. The US has the highest number of believers in both flat-Earthism and anthropogenic climate change scepticism, and the UK is not far behind. The US also has a high number (more than 50%) of senior political figures who deny man-made climate change, not to mention a democratically elected leader vocally believing the same. There are also numerous well-known celebrities who question the established shape of our planet.

While of course scientists can play the blame game, it could be that the scientific method itself is a major limiting factor in communicating results with the public. Science is not just a body of knowledge, but a method of critical thinking.

Scientists, by necessity, have to communicate their findings in a certain rigid way focusing on probabilities, certainty values and confidence intervals. These can appear dry or baffling to the public. But by providing more easily understandable narratives we can make scientific discussions with the public more productive.

In today’s complex world of social media narratives, the engagement of scientists with the public is more crucial than ever. Thankfully, current funding for public engagement training and activities is accessible to scientists with a passion for communication and conversation, enabling them to communicate facts rather than “fake news”.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Gareth Dorrian, Post Doctoral Research Associate in Space Science, Nottingham Trent University and Ian Whittaker, Lecturer, Nottingham Trent University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Why women keep turning to the Middle Ages for liberation from stifling fashions – CWEB.com

Louise D’Arcens, Macquarie University

The Middle Ages might seem the last place feminists would go to seek inspiration. But from around the 1850s advocates for dress reform in the English-speaking world and Germany called for a return to the silhouettes of the classical and medieval world.

A dress made circa 1984 by designer
Liberty & Co. Ltd.
© Victoria and Albert Museum

In doing so they began a feminist tradition that continues today. We saw this most recently at the Met Gala where stars donned fashion inspired by the Roman Catholic Church’s long heyday from the year 500 to 1550, including Rihanna’s glittering papal mitre and cloak. It was hard to miss the pointed irreverence of Rihanna assuming (and sexing up) the supreme mantle of an institution in which women can’t hold office. Coming at a time when campaigns against sexual harassment are sweeping the entertainment industry, the theme was surprisingly pertinent.

Aesthete and feminist Mary Eliza Haweis’s admired treatise The Art of Dress (1880) and Anna Muthesius’s Das Eigenkleid der Frau (Women’s Own Dress, 1903) were among those manifestos urging women to shed their restrictive corsets and embrace the more natural “antique waist” of pre-Elizabethan times. These free-waisted shifts, produced by firms like Liberty of London, shared with garments such as bloomers and divided skirts the practical aim of increasing women’s physical emancipation and social mobility. Their recourse to old styles was firmly in the name of New Womanhood.

Women who adopted this dress were, predictably, ridiculed in conservative quarters. The cartoons in Punch magazine by George du Maurier depict “Aesthetic” women as decadent jut-jawed poseurs in their juliet sleeves (a long sleeve with a puff at the top), grotesque parodies of the painter William Morris’s wife and muse Jane, who epitomised this style. Despite the criticism, the Aesthetic style of first-wave dress reform returned in the years associated with the sexual revolution and the rise of second-wave feminism.

In the 1960s and ’70s, fashion labels such as Biba created maxi-dresses that reworked the flowing skirts and trumpet sleeves of the medieval bliaut (a gown with sleeves hanging to the floor) as it had been interpreted by 19th-century dress reformers. While Biba’s Swinging London aesthetic and commercialism didn’t win favour among radical and Marxist feminists, its sexually libertarian ethos grants it a place in this feminist story.

From battlefield to runway

Joan of Arc has offered an alternative medieval style since the earliest days of modern feminism. Lauded in literature, art and theatre as the apex of female heroism, her enduring legacy in women’s fashion comes from her iconic cropped hair, which inspired the bobbed haircut that freed women of their encumbering Edwardian coiffures in the early 20th century. First introduced in France in 1909, the year of Joan’s beatification, and called the coupe à la Jeanne d’Arc, this haircut later became synonymous with the emancipated flappers of the Jazz Age.

Unlike the flowing gowns that influenced the Dress Reformers, Joan’s armour has not inspired everyday fashions for women. But her distinctive style of martial gamine has led haute couture designers, including Paco Rabanne, Christian Dior and Alexander McQueen, to create Joan of Arc-inspired lines and runway shows.

Photographer Annie Liebovitz channelled centuries of Joan iconography when she photographed actress Emma Thompson, an avowed feminist, in mailshirt and armour for the February 1996 cover of Vanity Fair. The ranks of Joans on the red carpet at the recent Met Gala might, however, have had had a more immediate source in Game of Thrones’s conspicuously Joan-like Brienne of Tarth or even Cersei Lannister, whose look has morphed from flowing-tressed sylph to crop-haired general.

One particularly welcome development at the Met Gala was seeing the mail coif associated with Joan adopted by women of colour such as Priyanka Chopra and Zendaya. This move distanced the saint from her recent nationalist and racist recruitment by Marine Le Pen of France’s Front National and reclaimed her as an icon of ferocity for all women.

In many ways Joan was an exceptional figure, a warrior among wives. Yet she is also inseparable from the Catholic Middle Ages, the culture that both enabled her remarkable ascent and ensured her violent demise.

She is symbolic of a woman who fights, but also warns us that a woman standing alone can founder at the impenetrable walls of masculine power. That’s why an army of Joans is needed, to expose and defeat the misogyny that has persisted for too many centuries.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Louise D’Arcens, Professor of English, Macquarie University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Artificial sweeteners are said to  be ‘lite’ but they leave a  heavy burden on  your  health – CWEB.com

Guy Fagherazzi, Université Paris Sud — Université Paris-Saclay

Diet soda drinkers, beware. Recent epidemiological studies have confirmed that the sweeteners used in diet sodas and other lite drinks increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Often asymptomatic, type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes, and is most often found among people who are overweight and sedentary.

Just published research results out of France show that people who “always or almost always” add sweeteners to their drinks — in sachet or tablet form — had an 83% higher risk of developing diabetes than those who use them “never or rarely”.

Aspartame, the most commonly used sweetener, and, more recently, sucralose (aka Splenda), have been used to replace sugar in so-called “diet” sodas for over 30 years.

Even though the quantity of artificial sweeteners in our diet has increased massively in recent years as industrial manufacturers add them with growing abandon to not just drinks but also cereals, biscuits, cakes, low-calorie yogurts and even certain medicines, reliable and precise data on their health impacts are rare.

Such products are marketed as low-calorie alternatives that are therefore healthy. This perception encourages consumers to overuse sweeteners to avoid putting on weight. But, even in moderation, these additives can have negative effects on health.

Today, sweeteners are increasingly controversial, and suspected of contributing to weight gain and being carcinogenic.

This has independent researchers across the world seeking to measure their real effects on health, particularly their impact on metabolic diseases.

Increase risk of diabetes and cancer

Our team at France’s Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health at Inserm, has been contributing to this growing body of health knowledge since 2012 through a research program on the risk factors for type 2 diabetes.

The program’s findings suggest that sugar substitutes should be treated with the utmost caution. In February, we published a study showing that the risk of diabetes increases with the consumption of artificial sweeteners. We had already shown that this risk was higher with so-called “diet” drinks than with regular sodas.

Our research is based on data from a cohort of nearly 100,000 French women in the Epidemiological Study of Women in National Education or E3N, one of the world’s few cohorts of this size.

This prospective cohort study has been monitoring the health of women who belong to the mutual health insurance company for French national education staff for the past 27 years. Initiated by epidemiologist Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, the study aims to improve understanding of women’s health and their risks of developing chronic conditions, such as cancer or type 2 diabetes.

Participants have completed detailed questionnaires on their diets since 1993, giving full details of each food intake, including snacks and appetisers prior to the three main meals and evening snacks. This gives researchers precise information, including pictures, of both the foods and drinks consumed and the average nutritional intake for each woman. The study ended in 2007.

Want a soda? Avoid diet

Studying this data in 2013, our team was able to demonstrate for the first time a higher risk of diabetes associated with diet drinks rather than with regular sodas.

Of the 66,118 women followed during this project, 1,369 were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Our team modelled the risk of developing the disease depending on consumption of three types of drinks: regular sodas, artificially sweetened sodas and 100% pure fruit juice. We took into account other factors such as physical activity, body mass index and family history.

Other studies had already shown an increased risk of diabetes associated with high consumption of soda in general.

This time, we managed to distinguish between them. For example, at 1.5 litres per week (the equivalent of a large bottle), the risk of diabetes was 60% higher with diet drinks than with regular sugary drinks. These results are all the more striking considering that people then drank less sugar-free sodas than we do today. The average back then was about 328 ml of sugary drinks each week (about a can), and 568 ml of “diet” drinks.

Significantly, there was no increase in the risk of diabetes with 100% pure fruit juices, which are naturally sweetened products.

Artificial sugar makes you feel hungry

Recently, our team used the E3N study to look at women’s consumption of sweeteners in sachet or tablet form. In our latest study we show that those who use them “always or almost always” had an 83% higher risk of developing diabetes than those who use them “never or rarely.”

Participants who used them regularly for more than ten years had a 110% higher risk than those who never or rarely used them, suggesting a cumulative effect over time.

The increase in risk persists when body mass index is taken into account, although it is slightly lower. It therefore appears that sweeteners have a direct effect on the risk of diabetes, even if being overweight is also a risk factor.

From a physiological point of view, the mechanism behind these results is still far from clear. One hypothesis is that people who consume a lot of sweeteners have a greater appetite for sugar, coupled with a tendency to overeat in general.

Sweeteners are thought to increase the feeling of hunger or to activate the T1R2/T1R3 receptors, which detect a wide variety of chemically and structurally diverse sweet-tasting molecules, along the digestive tract. If that’s the case, obviously sweeteners will not produce the desired effect, namely staying slim.

Another hypothesis is that those who consume large amounts of sweeteners also produce less of the GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like Peptide-1) hormone, which promotes pancreatic insulin secretion, and suffer more frequent deregulation of their glucose metabolism.

Sweeteners can alter our gut microbiota

Lastly, research on animals at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel has shown that high consumption of certain sweeteners causes changes in the intestinal microbiota.

We now know these microorganisms, which regulate digestive, metabolic, immune and neurological functions in the human body, to be important for health. Altering them is thought to lead to glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, a trigger for type 2 diabetes.

Whether people are trying to lose weight or avoid sugars, it’s time to convey a more accurate message about the benefits — or rather, the risks — of so-called “lite” foods.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXBP1t2rUc&w=560&h=315]

Guy Fagherazzi, Chercheur en épidémiologie, Inserm, Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris Sud — Université Paris-Saclay

This article was originally published on The Conversation.