mykie70: I'VE GOT A NEWLY DEVELOPED STRATEGY THAT I USE FOR MAKING MONEY ON BETONMARKETS .IT'S A SECRET STRATEGY THAT I WANT TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO FEW PEOPLE FOR FREE.TIRED OF MAKING LOSSES?THEN,GIVE ME A CALL ON 08073478780.I'M HERE AND READY TO HELP.

how much is your fee, whats the range like be realistic

Those who learned they had H.I.V. years ago thought they faced an early death. Many died, but many are now in middle age, struggling to live with the virus.

See the faces of H.I.V. in New York in 2013

Steve Schalchlin, 59
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1993
“One of the things about getting to the end of your life is that you become aware of what is important and what is not important. There’s a certain type of wisdom that enters into you when you have nothing left to lose.

“Toward the end of that process, that’s when I sat at the piano. I played all day long, all these churchy chords, I just played and played. I knew that the music, whether the vibrations or the exertion of creation, had had a measurable physical effect on my body. I suddenly felt strong.”



Bridelee Gittens, 48
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1991
“I have something called immune reconstitution syndrome, which is, when your immune system is down and you get sick, you don’t get no symptoms. Because your immune system is not working. Like if I had an infection, I would never get a fever. My body has no response. So the minute I start taking the medication and it gets in my system, in like a week or two I start to get sick.”

“AIDS is different than before. It’s not Kaposi’s sarcoma and PCP. Now it’s more diabetes and heart disease, high blood pressure and cancers. That’s what’s going on now. The disease has evolved.”


Scott Jordan, 52, right
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1984
“I’m on my fifth combination of drugs and it’s now failed. I don’t have options right now, so I’m back to being me against H.I.V. My doctors are trying to figure something out. But we just tried two experiments. One of them damaged my muscles – they began to pull and tear — and then last week they put another drug in and I was taken away in an ambulance with a severe reaction.”

“I’m exhausted. I would love to not have this to deal with. I would love to not have to take 13 medications every day.”


Mark Milano, 57
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1982
“I was healthy until 2007. Then everything changed. I was diagnosed with anal cancer. I’ve had three metastases – one in my right lung, one in my left, and one in my kidney. It feels like I’m in my 70s. At my age, I shouldn’t be dealing with all this stuff, right?”

“I tried Prozac for a while. But the thing that I found cured me of the depression was getting outside myself, volunteering, helping others. When I got involved in Act Up, I could finally say, I am proud to be part of these people.”

“So in that way, H.I.V. has changed my life for the better.”


Joan Warner, 73
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1990
“It was still a death sentence at that time, and people were dying left and right. My mother was preparing for when I was no longer going to be here. She told my son, don’t worry about anything, when the time came, her and my dad were going to take care of everything.”

“I am one of those who didn’t get sick. I feel blessed. I’ve never had an opportunistic infection. But for some reason my T-cells don’t grow. They range from 160 something to 180 something, which means I have an AIDS diagnosis.”


Perry Halkitis, 50
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1988
“It’s just too simple to think of this disease as a purely medical disease. Your doctor’s not worried about your social well-being. Your doctor’s not worried about where you’re spending your evenings, whether you have a group of people supporting you. That social cohesion that was very obvious in the ’80s because of the onset of the epidemic, that is not present in the lives of some men. Where are the people that I should be socializing with now? Where’s the opportunity to say, I’ve lived through this and here I am now?”


Serina Yancey, 51
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1996
“The doctor at St. Vincent’s said I had about two years to live. I just went into a shell.”

“I’d never heard of anyone living as long as I have with it. I took a peer education course and learned more about the virus and how you get it. The education opened me to learn more and gave me some hope, because my numbers were going up. I feel so good. I wish everyone felt as good as me. I don’t live with H.I.V., it lives with me. I don’t give it that much power.”


Christopher Davis, 62
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: AROUND 1987
“In the ’80s in the Village when we were all getting sick, we all knew everybody. There was a real sense of community. We all went to visit each other. We took food to one another when we were sick. You just don’t see that anymore.”

“We know so many young people who are guests in our apartment all the time who literally got sick in order to get benefits, or didn’t take their medicine in order to get benefits. And some of them still don’t take their meds. They just don’t care. And I think that’s so sad.”


Jan Carl Park, 63
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1986
“Everyone has some disease. People live with diabetes or MS. It’s how you view life. It’s one part of my life, but my life is so much bigger than H.I.V. I have a circle of friends who know I have H.I.V., some of whom have H.I.V. themselves, but we talk about different things. I don’t spend a lot of time and energy focusing on it. I did during the ’80s, when I was trying to do something about it, when I joined GMHC and Act Up and got arrested 12 times and almost lost my job.”

“There’s all these little miracles that have happened. The new meds just get better and better. That continues to move me forward.”


Osvaldo Perdomo, 52
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 2004, H.I.V. and AIDS simultaneously.
“I lived in New York City through the worst of the AIDS epidemic. As a gay man I was sexually active. I used protection, but I knew people who used protection but still got it and died. It was like, am I immune to this thing? And then one day it happened.”

“You’re not working, and you’re H.I.V. positive – you’re out of the picture. I haven’t dated anybody since I’ve been in this situation. I have $26 in my savings account and $400 in my checking and $40,000 on my credit card, and I’m living with H.I.V. and AIDS. You want to date me? I don’t think so.”



Yolanda Diaz, 50, right
YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1989
“When I was diagnosed, they told me, ‘Go home, pack up, you have AIDS, you’re not gonna live. You’re gonna die. If you have any health insurance, sell it.’ That was the message in ’89. I said, if I’m gonna die I might as well use drugs. I got incarcerated, and after 1994, my last state bid, I got educated. I started seeking help in Body Positive, United Bronx Parents.”

“My health is good, but I’m overweight. I was skinny because I was using, but as I got older and got clean, not hanging out, living the TV life, all those things put on weight.”

SOURCE

@ dasarge

both u and d patient re igorant about d cancer in question....period

consoling himself or the world..whats a baby cancer.....lyphoma or myeloma cure means bone marrow transplant which he shouldnt forget a regular checkup for posible future benign or malignant growth

dnative: forex trading!
fools and their money are soon parted

so u are saying am a fool?I prefer to be a fool making cool cash than being a gay like you

all men are not equal, one man's risk factor is another man's opportunity

endfx1:

Seconded no time...afteral its only FTA that brings many of us here.so whats the point?

@My Oga at the top... kiss my A..ss!

Honestly i try to put myself in seun's shoe to view hs perspective and see how people of his sort takes pride in channell negative energy to generalize their difficulty as impossible, honestly these kinda of fellas just make me realize how blessed and unique i am, not just on trading but other aspect of life

[size=14pt] the truth is this new e-trading technology is not for everyone, most people seems to be so confused with uncertainty so they stay a slave to their senses without even knowing who they re or what they can do, well , if anyone keep bragging its impossible, it just exposed their irrational, and how ignorant they.....It's one thing to hear ignorant people make ignorant assertions, it is quite another when a supposedly intelligent person takes those ignorant assertions and runs with it in the guise of trying to understand why ignorant people make ignorant assertions.

I mean at least the ignorant people have the excuse of being ignorant?!! Just keep do your thing and let them stay ignorant till eternity, the knowlegable keep geting richer while the ignorant stays broke against the trend[/size]

The United Nations is recommending that children as young as five receive mandatory sexual education that would teach even pre-kindergarteners about masturbation and topics like gender violence.
The U.N.'s Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a 98-page report in June offering a universal lesson plan for kids ranging in age from 5-18, an
"informed approach to effective sex, relationships" and HIV education that they say is essential for "all young people."
The U.N. insists the program is "age appropriate," but critics say it's exposing kids to sex far too early, and offers up abstract ideas — like "transphobia" — they might not even understand.
"At that age they should be learning about ... the proper name of certain parts of their bodies," said Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, "certainly not about masturbation."
Turner was disturbed by UNESCO's plans to explain to children as young as nine about the safety of legal abortions, and to advocate and "promote the right to and access to safe abortion" for everyone over the age of 15.
"This is absurd," she told FOXNews.com.
The UNESCO report, called "International Guidelines for Sexuality Education," separates children into four age groups: 5-to-8-year-olds, 9-to-12-year-olds, 12-to-15-year-olds and 15-to-18-year-olds.
Under the U.N.'s voluntary sex-ed regime, kids just 5-8 years old will be told that "touching and rubbing one's genitals is called masturbation" and that private parts "can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself."
• Click here to see the report.
By the time they're 9 years old, they'll learn about "positive and negative effects of 'aphrodisiacs," and wrestle with the ideas of "homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power."
At 12, they'll learn the "reasons for" abortions — but they'll already have known about their safety for three years. When they're 15, they'll be exposed to direct "advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion."
Child health experts say they are wary of teaching about the sticky topic of abortion, but stress that as long as messages stay age-appropriate, educating kids at a younger age helps better steer them into adulthood.
"The adults are more leery of [early sex-ed] than the kids are," said Dr. Jennifer Hartstein, a child psychiatrist in New York. "Our own fears sometimes prevent us from being as open and honest with our kids as possible."
Hartstein, however, who didn't see much harm in explaining basic concepts that kids of all ages will have questions about, was baffled by some of the ideas the U.N. hoped to introduce to kids as young as 5 years old, who will be taught about "gender roles, stereotypes and gender-based violence."
"I want to know how you teach that to a 5-year-old," Hartstein told FOXNews.com.
Despite those challenges, the U.N. insists that "in a world affected by HIV and AIDS ... there is an imperative to give children and young people the knowledge, skills and values to understand and make informed decisions."
UNESCO officials said the guidelines were "co-authored by two leading experts in the field of sexuality education" — Dr. Doug Kirby, an adolescent sexuality expert, and Nanette Ecker, the former director of international education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.
Their report was based on a "rigorous review" of sex-ed literature, "drawing upon 87 studies from around the world," said Mark Richmond, director of UNESCO's Division for the Coordination of U.N. Priorities in Education, in an e-mailed statement.
Richmond defended teaching about masturbation as "age-appropriate" because even in early childhood, "children are known to be curious about their bodies." Their lessons, he added, would hopefully help kids "develop a more complex understanding of sexual behaviour" as they grow into adults.
But Michelle Turner, of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, said that such roles should be left up to parents, and worried that children were being exposed to too much information too soon.
"Why can't kids be kids anymore?" she said.

Read more
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543203,00.html#ixzz2Pr0y5WQw

fxbomovi: also bought eu

@ what price ,looking forward to a minor retracement cos it already overbought currently

fxbomovi: usdjpy short.

Already short @ 50% retracemnt zone, will add to the short if the downnward trend signal alert

..

Market talks

EURO

The euro opened the US session at 1.3115, after trading in a 1.3028 to 1.3148 range in London and Tokyo. Despite disappointing German ZEW data released earlier, the euro was supported against the dollar and the crosses, especially euro-yen. After testing 1.3150 in early US action, the pair slipped to 1.3110/15, where it found solid support. A new push higher in euro-yen saw the euro break above earlier high, as well as the February 28 high at 1.3163, activating stops over 1.3170 around midday to post a high near 1.3184. A new wave of buying propelled the pair to 1.3199, but offers at 1.3200 capped the run. Later, the euro managed to reach 1.3202, but quickly dropped back below the figure and trailed lower to 1.3180 at the close.


YEN

Dollar-yen opened the US session at 97.80 after trading in a 95.80 to 98.01 range in the Asian and European sessions. Dollar-yen spiked higher in early action, topping out around 98.16 just before 10:00 am and the sliding down to a range of 97.70 to 97.97 for the balance of the morning. The pair drifted lower to 97.50 as UK and Eurozone players squared before heading home. A futher bout of dollar selling caused the pair to dip to 97.34 in early afternoon action before recoverng. The subsequent rally to 97.78 soon fizzled, euro-yen tested highs near 129.03 and then faded, and dollar-yen again drifted lower into the close.

This 34.65-carat pink diamond, known as “Princie,” sold to an anonymous buyer for $39.3 million at Christie’s in New York today. Worth it



more

Hwang Woo-suk (Korean: 황우석, born January 29, 1953) is a South Korean veterinarian and researcher. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who became infamous for fabricating a series of experiments, which appeared in high-profile journals, in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he reported to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning.
On May 12, 2006, Hwang was charged with embezzlement and bioethics law violations after it emerged much of his stem cell research had been faked. The Korea Times reported on June 10, 2007, that Seoul National University fired him, and the South Korean government canceled his financial support and barred him from engaging in stem cell research While being charged with fraud and embezzlement, he has kept a relatively low profile at the Sooam Bioengineering Research Institute in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, where he currently leads research efforts on creating cloned pig embryos and using them to make embryonic stem-cell lines. Since the controversy subsided, despite the history and his lost credibility as a scientist, Hwang's lab has been actively publishing manuscripts, many of which have appeared on PubMed, the online database for biomedical research. In June 2010, a groundbreaking ceremony was held in Guro-gu, Seoul, for a new addition to Hwang's Sooam Bioengineering Research Institute.In February 2011, Hwang visited Libya as part of a W150 billion project in the North African country to build a stem cell research center and transfer relevant technology. However, the project was canceled when civil war started there.
Hwang was sentenced to a two years suspended prison sentence at the Seoul Central District Court on 26 October 2009, after being found guilty of embezzlement and bioethical violations but cleared of fraud. On this same day, CNN reported that the scientist in 2006 admitted faking his findings, after questions of impropriety had emerged. He had his conviction upheld on 15 December 2010 by an appeals court in South Korea, which knocked 6 months off Hwang’s suspended sentence.

more

jejet: Read up on biotechnology, genetic and epigenetics

just don't want to remove that fact this issue is been politicize , am not against ny scientific ethics bt like dominique stated that cancer cases are on the rise, we should be more concern about humanity and not profit........guess i rest my case then..............

jejet: 1965: 3.2 billion people, 4300 sq meters arable land/head
2012: 7 bilion people, 2200 sq meters arable land/head
2030: 8.3 billion people, 1800 sq meters arable land/head
Also note that many percentage of these crops are into energy demand(biomass) to reduce the demand for oil. Agriculture needs breakthrough innovation.You're going to have GM food, or you're going to have world-wide famines. Without the green revolution, who is going to feed two billion new people. It's appropriate to proceed carefully, but even though it's in slow motion,this is a life or death decision for a lot of people

somehow i respect ur point of view but you are talking of life and death decision,rembr organic(natural) foods are still being grown, bt pls Can i ask u a question, what future do u think cancer therapy holds, am not talking in terms of radiotherapy or chemotherapy or surgery......i want to know because thats a sure indicator for me that genetics is really understood before genetic application can be considered safe for me, mind u, am not saying GM foods is not safe for consumption, am only saying we dont know everything yet to declare it safe

A leaked study examining genetically-modified corn reveals that the lab-made alternative to organic crops contains a startling level of toxic chemicals.

An anti-GMO website has posted the results of an education-based consulting company’s comparison of corn types, and the results reveal that genetically modified foods may be more hazardous than once thought.

The study, the 2012 Corn Comparison Report by Profit Pro, was published recently on the website for Moms Across America March to Label GMOs, a group that says they wish to “raise awareness and support Moms with solutions to eat GMO Free as we demand GMO labeling locally and nationally simultaneously.” They are plotting nationwide protests scheduled for later this year.

The report, writes the website’s Zen Honeycutt, was provided by a representative for De Dell Seed Company, an Ontario-based farm that’s touted as being Canadian only non-GMO corn seed company.

“The claims that ‘There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn’ are false,” says Honeycutt, who adds she was “floored” after reading the study.

According to the analysis, GMO corn tested by Profit Pro contains a number of elements absent from traditional cord, including chlorides, formaldehyde and glyphosate. While those elements don’t appear naturally in corn, they were present in GMO samples to the tune of 60 ppm, 200pm and 13 ppm, respectively.

Honecutt says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) mandates that the level of glyphosate in American drinking water not exceed 0.7 ppm and adds that organ damage in some animals has been linked to glyphosate exposure exceeding 0.1 ppm.

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc [and] copper,” Dr. Don Huber attested during a separate GMO study recently released, adding that those elements “are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals.”

“Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it,” adds Honeycutt, who notes that the nutritional benefits rampant in natural corn are almost entirely removed from lab-made seeds: in the samples used during the study, non-GMO corn is alleged to have 437-times the amount of calcium in genetically modified versions, and 56- and 7-times the level of magnesium and manganese, respectively.

These studies come on the heels of a recent decision on Capitol Hill to approve an annual agriculture appropriations bill, even though a provision within the act contained a rider that frees GMO corporations such as the multi-billion-dollar Monsanto Company from liability. The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” written by a lawmaker that has lobbied for the agra-giant, says biotech companies won’t need federal approval to test and plant GMO-crops, even if health risks are unknown.

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” reads a letter to the House of Representatives that was delivered to Congress last month with the signatures of dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

more

@ dominique,
actually, That was the issue on my mind that brought about this post,bt had to choose this title as many thoughts running in my head, the issue is that cancer is no new disease from ages, biotech happens to be a new branch of science which future is still so young in both research and application,if many degenerative diseases like - Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's Disease ,HIV, Malaria, leukemia,are diseases that still under research with no permanent or sure cure yet, if everything about genes is fully understood, it should go for cure first and not for profit. i think i will prefer organic foods either to genetic tampered ones , i can now considered it safe, when they have use it successful in knowing what really is killing people in HIV, Alzheimer's disease, Or Malaria, not because a powerful company generating the largest profit annually or FDA is telling me so......as for the nutritional value, i guess that might have been altered to with plasmid this, ecoli that, even heared some of the top official ordered organic foods specially for their fam, so why make it a market........the issue of labeling GM foods in US is whats just driving my concern

jaymichael: really?

Actually

the hard truth about soft drinks.

1. “The hottest new beverage is water.”
People aren’t losing their thirst, but they are going back to basics. Water is one of the fastest-growing segments of the beverage industry, studies suggest, while sales for traditional fizzy drinks are on the decline. From 2009 to 2011, sales of regular soft drinks declined by 1.9% to $27 billion, according to a 2012 report from market research group Mintel. “It would seem that the category has seen its peak and is now retreating,” the study reported. (Consumers are choosing more low- and no-calorie beverages, says a spokesman for the American Beverage Association.)
The decline is part of a shift in consumer tastes. From 2001 to 2011, annual bottled-water consumption soared 56% to 26 gallons per person — the equivalent of 166 of those typical 20-ounce bottles — according to The Beverage Information Group and the U.S. Census. At the same time, annual soda consumption fell 16%, to 44 gallons (about 281 single-serving bottles) per person. Indeed, many soda makers now also own bottled-water brands. Coca-Cola owns Dasani, PepsiCo owns Aquafina, and Dr Pepper Snapple owns Deja Blue.
While fizzy-drink sales may have lost their fizz, soda isn’t going away any time soon. A decade ago, 80% of Americans consumed at least one such beverage every two weeks, says Harry Balzer, chief industry analyst for market research firm NPD Group. Today, 72% continue to do so. “Soda is still a very popular part of the American diet,” he says. “More Americans drink soda than drink energy drinks and coffee.”


2. “Coke made Santa fat.”
Coca-Cola has been often credited with creating the modern image of Santa Claus: The rosy-cheeked fellow with plenty of girth appeared as part of its advertising as early as the 1930s. The old-fashioned version of St. Nicholas, the European saint on whom Santa is based, is depicted as more svelte. But amid growing concerns about rising obesity rates, Santa’s size has begun to take on a new implications. “Soda continues to be blamed for obesity, and proponents of obesity-reduction programs continue to clamor to tax the beverage,” the Mintel report states.
Rising consumption of sugary drinks has been a major contributor to the obesity epidemic, according to a 2012 report published by the Institute of Medicine. Some 26% of American adults defined themselves as obese in 2011, according to the Well-Being Index calculated by market research group Gallup and health-care consultancy Healthways. And too much sugar consumption is one of the most direct causes of Type 2 diabetes, says Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. In fact, drinking one to two sugary drinks per day increases the risk of Type 2 diabetes by 26%, a 2010 study published by the Diabetes Journal found.
The industry disputes the idea that such studies prove that soft drinks are a major part of or even cause the problem. “None of the studies say that drinking a soft drink will make you obese,” says Christopher Gindlesperger, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association. But he says that the soft-drink industry has nonetheless responded to these concerns and significantly reduced the amount of sugar in drinks: 45% of soft drinks sold now have zero calories, and the average calorie count per serving has fallen 23% since 1998. “It says a lot for consumer tastes and what our companies are doing,” he says. A spokeswoman for Coca-Cola says the company has helped reduce the number of “beverage calories” sold in schools by 90% since 2006, when Coca-Cola joined the Alliance for a Healthier Generation — a joint initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association — to create a new school-beverage policy in the U.S.


3. “Diet drinks aren’t health foods.”
The bad news: Diet soda may not be good for you either. One recent study by French researchers published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found a strong correlation between diet drinks and increased risk of Type 2 diabetes. Women who drink “light” beverages tend to consume 43% more than women who drink normal sugary drinks — the study found. Furthermore, when consumed in equal quantities, artificially sweetened drinks were associated with an increased risk of developing diabetes.
But correlation isn’t causation. These studies don’t rule out that factors other than artificially sweetened beverage consumption are responsible for the association with diabetes, says Gindlesperger of the American Beverage Association. He says other factors play a role: According to the National Institute of Diabetes, for example, those at greater risk for Type 2 diabetes include people in certain ethnic groups, those who are overweight or those with a family history of diabetes.


4. “We’re caffeine-dependent.”
Energy drinks are the new kid on the block in the beverage industry, stealing market share from traditional sodas, experts say. In fact, sales of energy drinks are expected to grow from $12.5 billion last year to $21.5 billion by 2017, according to the market research group Packaged Facts. Soft-drink companies have their own energy brands. Coca-Cola sells NOS, PepsiCo has Amp Energy and Dr Pepper Snapple owns Venom Energy.
But the caffeine content of energy drinks has caught the attention of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA caps permissible caffeine levels in soft drinks at 200 parts per million, or 0.02%, which is the equivalent of around 72 milligrams in a 12-ounce can.
However, there are no such restrictions on energy drinks and, an FDA spokeswoman says, some may contain more than the FDA’s recommended allowance per serving. “To date, no regulatory limit has been set for the amount of caffeine in other types of drinks, although the FDA has received several petitions requesting such a regulation,” a spokeswoman says.
One 16-ounce can of Monster Energy, one of the most popular energy drinks on the market, has around 160 milligrams of caffeine (vs. 38 milligrams in a 12-ounce can of Pepsi) and it isn’t unusual for users to consume multiple drinks in a day. Tammy Taylor, a spokeswoman for Monster Beverage, points out that the drinks contain half the caffeine of many large coffees. Indeed, a grande (16-ounce) Starbucks coffee has 330 milligrams of caffeine, and a 16.5-ounce Panera frozen mocha has 267 milligrams, according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest.


5. “Caffeine and alcohol make a dangerous cocktail.”
Too much of something is rarely a good thing — especially when it comes to uber-caffeinated energy drinks. The number of people showing up at emergency rooms reporting symptoms like racing heartbeat, seizures and headache after drinking energy drinks soared from 10,000 to more than 20,000 from 2007 to 2011, according to a survey of hospitals released last month by the federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Most of those visits were made by teens or young adults, it said.
“We’re seeing more and more people coming in with these issues, especially young people who are mixing their energy drinks with alcohol,” says Tom Sugarman, emergency physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians. And it’s not just youngsters: Sugarman recently gave advice to a mother who complained that her baby never slept; it turned out, she was drinking energy drinks while breastfeeding. “That’s going to go straight to baby,” he says.
Energy-drink manufacturers take issue with the ER-visit study. A spokeswoman for Monster Beverage says it’s “highly misleading and does not support any conclusion that energy drinks are unsafe for consumers.” And as an official statement by the American Beverage Association points out: The report “shows that 42% of the reported ER visits were by someone who had admitted to consuming alcohol or taking illegal substances or pharmaceuticals…. And the consumption of those substances along with energy drinks means the energy drinks may be irrelevant.”


6. “We’re the last drink some people ever have.”
Because many energy drinks are considered dietary supplements, the manufacturers are required to report fatalities with potential connections to the products to the FDA. As of March 6, 2013, there was one report of an individual who drank the dietary supplement and energy drink Rockstar Energy before dying; 13 reports of deaths involving possible involvement of 5-Hour Energy; and eight death reports mentioning Monster. Monster is changing its label to a conventional food, but it has told the FDA that it intends to continue to voluntarily file adverse event reports after the conversion.
There’s no way to know, of course, whether the drinks and the fatalities are causally connected. Maureen Beach, a spokeswoman for the American Beverage Association, says energy drinks have been “enjoyed safely” in the U.S. for more than 15 years and around the world for over 25 years. 5-Hour Energy — which is not a member of the ABA — is a 1.93 fluid ounce “shot” rather than a “drink” and is only marketed to adults as a dietary supplement, says Elaine Lutz, a spokeswoman for 5-Hour Energy. Both Monster and 5-Hour say the filing of such reports doesn’t mean a product caused the fatality. Lutz says 5-Hour doesn’t market its products to children and does not recommend individuals take more than two shots a day (spaced several hours apart). Rockstar Energy did not respond to requests for comment.


7. “We like big cups and we cannot lie.”
In March, a New York State Supreme Court justice overturned New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to prevent restaurants, food carts, delis, sports stadiums and movie-theater concession stands from selling sugary drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces — much to the dismay of many public health advocates. The Bloomberg administration plans to appeal the decision, but experts say even if the ban on supersize sodas succeeds, retailers will find a way around the ban in, well, a New York minute.
Before the ban was overturned, Dunkin’ Donuts unveiled signs telling customers that they could add their own sugar and “flavor swirls” to large and extra-large beverages, which could effectively help customers get around the rule. A spokeswoman for the company says all Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants in New York City were prepared to comply with the New York City beverage regulations. Preparing special condiment stands for customers to add their own flavor or sweeteners, she says, was primarily designed “to eliminate as much confusion as possible.”
Scott DeFife, head of government relations at the National Restaurant Association, says the ban itself made little practical sense. For instance, customers at Brother Jimmy BBQ, a chain of southern-style restaurants in New York, would still have been able to order giant pitchers of cocktails like margaritas — and as many ribs as they can eat — and simply order their 24-ounce drinks by buying several smaller cups, he says. Plus, 7-Eleven’s massive “Big Gulp” drinks would have been exempt from the ban, as most convenience stores and supermarkets are beyond the city’s regulatory reach.

8. “Our deep pockets will veto a soda tax.”
When efforts by public-health advocates and senate leaders to consider new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks escalate, experts say, so does the lobbying spending of soda companies. Between 2005 and 2009, as public-health advocates were making a big push to tax soda at the national level, lobbying spending by the soda industry rose more than 30-fold, to $40.3 million in 2009, says Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. That spending effort contributed to the defeat of the proposals at the national level, Jacobson says.
Between 2009 and 2011, legislatures in several states and cities across the U.S. — including Philadelphia, Texas and Washington, D.C. — considered implementing a soda tax, but most of those were also rebuffed, and lobbying spending has tapered off since then. The amount of money spent by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association fell to $10 million in 2011, Jacobsen says.
The soft-drink industry says its lobbying efforts also go toward other issues, like agriculture, tax, nutrition and transportation. “We were reacting to the situation we found ourselves in,” says Christopher Gindlesperger, the spokesman for the American Beverage Association. He says it’s important to advocate on behalf of consumers “about discriminatory proposals like taxes and bans.” (Coca-Cola declined to comment and PepsiCo did not respond requests for comment.)


9. “Our charitable donations wind up in strange places…”
A report released in March by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest says that soda companies donate to charitable causes that might otherwise be highly critical of the industry. The report alleges that the industry’s donations to two major anti-hunger groups, the Food Research and Action Center and Feeding America, for instance, raise questions about those agencies’ “longstanding ties to food and beverage companies.”
Such relationships between corporations and nonprofits, some public-health advocates say, can create a conflict-of-interest gray area. Case in point: These two groups stand alongside the soft-drink industry in opposition to regulations that would bar the use of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — formerly known as food stamps — to purchase sugary drinks, says the CSPI’s Jacobson. Critics wonder whether these organizations support the use of SNAP benefits to purchase soda if they weren’t getting donations from the soda industry. In separate statements, both groups say they’ve consistently opposed restrictions on SNAP because there are better ways to tackle obesity. Furthermore, they say, accepting donations from the beverage industry doesn’t contradict or compromise their missions.
A spokesman for Coca-Cola says the company spent $45 million on community organizations last year. “The suggestion that our community philanthropic efforts are motivated by something other than goodwill is grossly inaccurate,” she says. A PepsiCo spokeswoman says the company supports “a wide array of organizations that work in the communities” it serves.

10. “…including with doctors and dentists.”
The very organizations that should be giving tips advising people to drink more water and less soda are also accepting money from soda companies, according to the study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. It says the soft-drink industry has given money to groups representing doctors, dentists and dietitians, which it alleges has made it more difficult for them to give impartial advice. “Beverage companies are using strategic philanthropy to protect their images and profit,” the study reports.
For their part, soda companies say that they don’t give donations with the intention of silencing potential critics.
In 2009, Coca-Cola paid $600,000 to the American Academy of Family Physicians to help create a website advocating healthy diets. Glen Stream, board chair of the AAFP and a physician based in Spokane, Wash., describes the partnership between Coca-Cola and the AAFP as a “consumer alliance” and says Coca-Cola provides no editorial control. “There is an absolute firewall from the funding source that comes from Coca-Cola and the information that is provided,” he says. “We would support taxes on sugary beverages if the tax were actually high enough to affect consumption.”

Genetically modified (GM) foods
— are they safe or harmful? While regulatory authorities have approved GM food that is on the market, some people are concerned that there is risk of harm. Most foods we eat may contain ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). If you live in Europe, avoiding GM foods is easier since laws require labeling. In the US and Canada, however, food manufacturers are not required to label if their food is genetically modified or not.

Become familiar with the most common applications of genetic modification. These are the products (and their derivatives) that are most likely to be genetically modified:


Soybeans - Gene taken from bacteria (Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4) and inserted into soybeans to make them more resistant to herbicides.

Corn - There are two main varieties of GE corn. One has a Gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted to produce the Bt toxin, which poisons Lepidoteran (moths and butterflies) pests.[2] There are also several events which are resistant to various herbicide. Present in high fructose corn syrup and glucose/fructose which is prevalent in a wide variety of foods in America.

Rapeseed/Canola - Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to herbicide.
Sugar beets - Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.


Cotton - engineered to produce Bt toxin. The seeds are pressed into cottonseed oil, which is a common ingredient in vegetable oil and margarine.


Dairy - Cows injected with GE hormone rBGH/rBST; possibly fed GM grains and hay.

Sugar. In 2012 the FDA approved GMO Beet Sugars to be allowed to be sold on the market under the name.... "SUGAR" So now, when we go to buy "All Natural" Breyer's Ice Cream, we can't even know for sure that we are actually eating regular natural cane sugar. If you see "CANE SUGAR" there's a good chance it's not GMO. This is one of the biggest frustrations with labelling, as sugar is in so many things, and we might be avoiding food that POSSIBLY has GMO sugar, but really does not.

Papayas.

Zuchini.

A Fridge Without Using Electricity!

This is incredible idea is an extension of the pottery water cooling vessels used though the millennia.

This is Mohammed Bah Abba's Pot-in-pot invention. In northern Nigeria, where Mohammed is from, over 90% of the villages have no electricity. His invention, which he won a Rolex Award for (and $100,000), is a refrigerator than runs without electricity.

Here's how it works. You take a smaller pot and put it inside a larger pot. Fill the space in between them with wet sand, and cover the top with a wet cloth. When the water evaporates, it pulls the heat out with it, making the inside cold. It's a natural, cheap, easy-to-make refrigerator.

So, instead of perishable foods rotting after only three days, they can last up to three weeks. Obviously, this has the potential to change their lives. And it already has -- there are more girls attending school, for example, as their families no longer need them to sell food in the market.

"Brilliant ideas don't need to be difficult to execute: here's a case in point. The technology has been known for centuries, but WASN'T APPLIED TO THE PROBLEM. Notice that applying technology also has the effect of educating young people."

.

just check it ot,rily nice,ecn execution just like xe, low spread, smartphone platforms nd d stopout is just 10% ,thanks gerald

@splashbaby

funny enough most people hapen to be allergic to d so2 of d sulphite, ageing naturally fade it away which then makes it becomes costlier

naijababe: Gold ?! and AU is getting creamed too. I hope you EA traders got some pips out if this move, must be heading north like crazy

After Friday's hard fall, Gold is likely heading lower. just watching on How low will it go before it diverge

ACM10:

in terms of spreads. I'm not really worried about leverage.

then go with xemarket or hotforex,am sure u ll like it

A growing body of research tells us that success is not so much a function of raw intelligence, but of work, circumstances and time applied to a specific skill.

It's a theme that helps power the American meritocracy and drive the dream that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough – even in the knowledge economy.

But it may not be entirely true.


A new study from Jonathan Wai, research scientist at Duke University, finds a strong correlation between brainpower and success – especially wealth. As the study states: "the top one percent in wealth highly overlaps with the top one percent in brains."

About 45 percent of billionaires are in the top one percent of cognitive ability, the study states. Billionaires were generally smarter than Fortune 500 CEOs, where 38.6 percent were in the top 1 percent of brains. Senators ranked just below that, with 41 percent, along with federal judges 41 percent. Members of the House were less smart, with 21 percent. (The smartest sub group of the American rich and powerful are male Senate Democrats).

Even among billionaires, however, there are wide variations in brainpower. Billionaires who made their fortunes from investments and technology were far more likely to be in the top one percent of brains; 69 percent and 63 percent of them were brain-one-percenters. Billionaires who made their money in fashion and retail, as well as food and beverage, were less brainy: with 25 percent and 23 percent of them in the brain elite, respectively.

So higher brainpower is not just concentrated at the top: it's concentrated among certain segments of the top.

There is one caveat to the theory. The study measures cognitive ability by attendance at 29 selected "elite colleges," which, it says, typically requires high test scores and therefore indicates high intelligence and high IQ. "Elite college attendance indicates a high general ability level," the study says.

But not always. As the study concedes, factors other than test scores and IQ can play a role in admission to elite colleges, like legacy preferences, wealth, sports scholarships and other attributes. And some very smart people don't go to the elite schools for financial or other reasons.

An earlier study from a research scientist finds that "IQ really has no relationship to your wealth."

Still, the Duke study found that fully 88 percent of the Forbes billionaires graduated from college. I guess Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are more exceptions than the rule.

You dont want to underestimate the power of hormonal rush in newbie juveniles , notin can rily be done until they ve satisty the intense desire while d stupidity intruct from what it teaches.....funny this is what d past hs done to most of us