Log in
:New Stablecoin: A new stablecoin, A7A5, pegged to the Russian rouble, has been launched to facilitate cross-border payments despite Western sanctions.
:High Transaction Volume: In just four months, A7A5 has seen approximately $9.3bn moved on a dedicated crypto exchange, Grinex, also recently founded in Kyrgyzstan.
:Sanctioned Bank Backing: The stablecoin claims to be backed by rouble deposits in Promsvyazbank, a Russian defense sector bank targeted by sanctions.
:Founder's Background: The company behind A7A5 is majority-owned by Moldovan businessman Ilan Șor, who fled Moldova after a conviction for bank fraud and has faced accusations of vote-buying.
:Potential Political Use: A report suggests A7A5 may be linked to Moscow's efforts to fund political influence campaigns abroad, with shared IP addresses found between political influence operation sites and A7/A7A5 domains.
|
Strategic Initiatives
|
Nvidia's DGX Cloud: Launched two years ago, it competes with major cloud providers.
Nvidia's Investments: Invested in AI cloud players CoreWeave and Lambda, potentially shifting cloud computing dynamics.
Financial Implications: DGX Cloud's fast growth and multiyear agreements indicate a substantial business.
Cloud Giants' Concerns: Amazon, Microsoft, and Google could be affected by the shift of cloud computing landscape.
Nvidia's Strategy: Nvidia's DGX Cloud lets them help shape AI development and potentially grow their cloud business.
Robotic advancements: New robotics, enhanced by AI and improved sensors, are making automated loading and unloading of trucks a reality.
AmbiStack and Stretch: Companies like Ambi Robotics (AmbiStack) and Boston Dynamics (Stretch) are developing robots capable of complex tasks like stacking and lifting heavy boxes.
Industry adoption: DHL is expanding its use of Boston Dynamics' Stretch robots, with plans for 1,000 more, while UPS and FedEx are also increasing automation in their facilities.
Efficiency gains: Robots like DHL's 'Johnny 5' can unload cases at nearly double the rate of human workers, demonstrating significant efficiency improvements.
Worker concerns: Despite advancements, human workers in these physically demanding roles fear job displacement due to increasing automation and other economic factors like cost-cutting.
Personal Health: The author describes himself as generally healthy despite a moderate lifestyle, with only typical minor health issues and sports injuries throughout his life.
Company Investigation: The author purchased a discounted food sensitivity test from 'Test My Food Sensitivity', run by individuals with a history in wellness ventures, including a defunct wellness center in Spain and various related companies.
Test Methodology: The test uses Bioresonance technology with a MARS III Quantum Response System, which the author questions, noting the device's classification and low price point.
Test Results: Despite his robust health and diet, the author's test results indicated high sensitivities to numerous food items (including common foods like chicken, ale, and various fruits/vegetables), environmental factors, and metals, with only the gut biome showing clear.
Critique of Tests: The author concludes that these tests are potentially harmful, especially for vulnerable individuals with chronic health issues, as they can lead to unnecessary dietary restrictions, nutritional deficiencies, and may deter people from seeking proper medical diagnosis and treatment.
Let’s get this out of the way straight out of the gate: I’m annoyingly healthy. I’ve blissfully plain-sailed my way through five decades of life with minimal medical maladies; only the usual plethora of viral and bacterial infections, a classic middle-aged man hernia operation, and a fair amount of unpleasant sporting injuries. With no lasting effect from any of these (so far), I wouldn’t quite say I’ve won the genetic lottery yet, but my balls are looking favourable.
In terms of how I look after myself… well, that’s a mixed bag: a non-smoker, definitely not a non-drinker, a decent amount of exercise to compensate for a desk job, and a diet that’s a little better than in my youth, but certainly not wholesome enough to impress any food blogger.
Nevertheless, perhaps due to my advancing age or my previous skeptical investigations, the internet thinks I need medical assistance in various forms. To add to that I’m a sucker for a bargain, so when a heavily discounted offer for a food sensitivity test was presented to me, I just couldn’t resist. The generous company in question was “Test My Food Sensitivity” – run by current director Andrew West, and former director, his wife Carol, who appeared in the press a decade ago evangelising about the power of their strict vegan diets, and their now apparently defunct wellness centre in Spain. It appears they pivoted over to juicing for a while before settling for pseudo-healthcare. Other companies they’ve been, or still are involved with, include Lifelab Testing Ltd, Global Science Technology Ltd, Healthy Stuff Holdings Ltd, Healthy Stuff Online Ltd, Healthy Stuff Group Ltd, Healthy Stuff Co Retail Ltd, and Global Testing Labs Ltd. To further muddy the waters, some of these act as parent companies for even more ventures, including Lifelab Testing, Pet Health at Home, and Allergy Test Ireland.
Undaunted by the corporate labyrinth they’d created, I jumped straight in and placed my order, after which I thought it best to actually read their website. For the rare few inclined to check, the terms and conditions are pretty explicit:
Our test and this website does not make a medical diagnosis nor is it intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
The ‘About our laboratory’ section of their site starts again with a recommendation to see a doctor if you believe you have a medical condition or are seriously ill, but it’s followed immediately by what seems like an attempt to persuade you otherwise:
However, bioresonance hair testing is proving to be an alternative which is helping people to experience new health benefits.
It’s a perfect balance of keeping on the right side of the law while sweeping aside any doubts you may have about making a purchase. While the “How does it work though?” section of page fails to tell us anything about how it actually works, it does tell us that Bioresonance technology has improved significantly in the last few years, and that your hair strand will be tested and will tell you whether you have any reactions, and “therefore whether or not you need to avoid that item”.
The equipment they use for the testing is the MARS III Quantum Response System (Multiple Analytical Resonance Systems). If the use of the word Quantum is already worrying you, perhaps the reassurance that the device is “manufactured and listed as a medical scanning device class 11a” should help. Sadly, this is almost certainly wrong. Chances are they actually mean IIa as per the UK Government Classification of Medical Devices. This classification also doesn’t speak to whether the machine in question does what it claims, but more about the risk that it carries. The £25 I paid for my test may have sounded like a bargain initially, but it seems that I paid a quarter of the price of buying the machine itself as it can be found for less than £100 on Amazon – tempting!
The test itself is certainly harmless. All you need to do is snip a few hairs and send them off, so unless you suffer from aichmophobia then you should be just fine. When my kit arrived, I opted for chest hairs (the little remaining hair on my head is too precious to remove), which I sent off for analysis.
As already established, I’m generally about as healthy as you get, but specifically in terms of how I react to food, I’m gold-standard. As a proud Scotsman I regularly consume deep-fried everything, love a good curry, and in terms of liquid refreshment I regularly partake in all the bad stuff, from coffee and Irn-Bru on the softer side, to a glorious array of dizzying delights on the alcoholic end of the scale. Despite the national cliches, I’m no stranger to a salad, and have in my years consumed all manner of food and drink. With all that in mind, other than well-earned hangovers I’ve suffered no ill-effects whatsoever; I’ve never had acid reflux, heartburn, bloating, indigestion, stomach cramps, or any other common post-food-consumption ailment. Any diarrhoea has likely been attributable to questionable food hygiene rather than food intolerance (yes, I’m looking at you, proprietors of now closed ‘Taste of Punjab’ takeaway on Argyle Street), and certainly no food allergies (worth noting that allergies and intolerances are different things).
Considering the seemingly superhuman strength of my constitution, surely my food sensitivity test would come back clear? The results arrived within a few days, and were potentially devastating. Interestingly, after the pre-amble in my report, there’s a short paragraph about Bioresonance therapy and testing, with accompanying diagram. These are presumably required as part of legal disclaimers, but are missing from anything you may have read before making your purchase:
Bioresonance therapy and testing is categorised as a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This is a diverse group of therapies, practices and products, which fall outside of conventional medicine or healthcare. The findings in the report do not make a medical diagnosis.
The results come with a percentage value and a colour coding, which indicate the level of potential sensitivity. The FAQs recommend the following:
for best results, we do recommend removing all items from the diet reacting at over 85%.
In order to avoid further bloating my word count in this article I’m not going to list everything that showed up at 85% or above, and instead I’ll only list those that hit the red-zone of 95% or above. I’d encourage you to try to work your way through these these in the style of Daniel Radcliffe storming his way through Alphabet Aerobics:
Food items
Ale (off to the WORST possible start), Alfalfa, Almond, Barramundi, Basmati Rice, Bell Pepper – Red, Catfish, Chayote, Cherries, Chicken, Chicken Of The Woods Mushrooms (Laetiporus), Chickpea, Cornish Game Hen, E 104 Quinoline yellow, E 320 Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), E 327 Calcium lactate (salts from lactic acid), E 330 Citric acid, E 461 Methylcellulose, E 623 Calcium diglutamate, Calciumglutamate, Fuji apple, Grapefruit, Herring, Jackfruit, Jujube, King Oyster Mushrooms (Pleurotus eryngii), Lager, Moose, Oranges, Pomfret, Purslane, Rose Wine, Sage, Sea cucumber, Soursop, Starfruit, Viili, Wakame, Wheatgrass.
Non-food / environmental items
Other environmental factors which may cause sensitivity: Amongst the ‘big-hitters’ on this equally long list are cats (I’ve lived with cats almost my whole life – cute pictures available on-request), chlorine (the stuff they put in all the swimming pools I’ve ever been in), and polyester (you know, that stuff they use in clothing, which I regularly wear).
Nutritional imbalances
The only ‘red’ item is Zeaxanthin (found in leeks, okra, spinach and watercress), but some basics like carotenoids, fibre, and iron also make the list with lower percentages.
Metals
Apparently proximity to copper, gold, nickel, or palladium might cause me problems. That’s a shame as I’m a big metal fan (the music, not the air current-generating rotational device). Perhaps it’s referring to mosh pit trauma? I hereby promise to avoid Nickelback at all costs, just as a precaution.
Gut biome
This was the only part of the test to come back clear, but considering everything else I’m supposedly ‘sensitive’ to, that was little compensation.
So let’s be clear: This test isn’t really for me. It’s not meant for people like me. The real target here is vulnerable people with ongoing health problems, some of whom have probably tried and failed many times before to find the key to those problems. Potentially there could be a dietary issue, but in many cases, there may be something more complex and hard-to-identify going on. If those people, perhaps in desperation, take the plunge and spend their money on a food sensitivity test that has not been proven to work, then the likelihood is that they’ll embark on an extremely stressful and unnecessary set of restrictions. Such courses of action can cause nutritional deficiencies themselves, but aside from that, it may also prevent them from seeking genuine medical assistance and potentially missing a diagnosis of something more severe.
Food intolerance is of course a real thing, and there’s useful guidance from the NHS on how it might be diagnosed and treated. If you think you may have some form of this, or something else which is causing your symptoms, then please keep your hair intact, put down your wallet, pick up the phone, and call a real doctor.
Vitamin D Origins: Vitamin D, essential for calcium absorption and bone health, was discovered in the 20th century and linked to sunlight exposure and cod liver oil.
Rickets Treatment: Cod liver oil, initially used for rheumatism, became a treatment for rickets (a bone-softening disease) in the 19th century.
Sunlight and Vitamin D: Vitamin D is known as the "sunshine vitamin" because skin produces it when exposed to sunlight; it requires conversion in the liver and kidneys to become active.
VITAL Trial Findings: A large study (VITAL) found that Vitamin D supplements did not prevent cardiovascular disease, cancer, stroke, cognitive decline, or fractures in adults.
Exaggerated Media Reports: Media headlines about Vitamin D slowing aging are based on telomere length findings in the VITAL trial, which did not show overall anti-aging effects or disease prevention.
This article was first published in The Montreal Gazette.
In many of my public lectures, I address the topic of dietary supplements and often do a rudimentary audience survey. When I ask about taking Vitamin D, the majority of adult hands go up.
“Prevent osteoporosis” is the usual answer to the question as to why, although there is also a smattering of comments about reducing the risk of cancer or heart disease. This is not surprising, given the ebullient articles about Vitamin D in the lay literature. However, scrutinizing the scientific literature dampens one’s enthusiasm for the vitamin.
The mention of rickets brings images of bow-legged children afflicted by this bone-softening disease during the Industrial Revolution in Britain to mind. Yet the condition was known as early as the 17th century, when it was first described by English physicians Daniel Whistler and Francis Glisson. It wasn’t until the 20th century that the disease was linked to a deficiency of a substance produced in the skin upon exposure to sunlight that came to be known as Vitamin D. That explained the prevalence of rickets during the Industrial Revolution, when the sun was obscured by smoke.
Even before the intricacies of the disease were understood, there was a treatment: cod liver oil. By the early 19th century, this fish extract had already developed a folkloric reputation for treating rheumatism and joint pain, so it was readily available to try on rickets when physicians noted that children who lived in coastal areas — where fish was a dietary staple — were less affected by the disease. It worked.
By 1840, the foul-tasting liquid was routinely forced down children’s throats, leaving them with a memorable experience, but at least one that didn’t include rickets.
The mystery of why cod liver oil works was solved in 1922 by Elmer McCollum, who had discovered Vitamin A. McCollum found that rats develop rickets when fed a plain cereal diet. He proceeded to add various foods to their diet to see if any could prevent the disease. He finally hit upon cod liver oil and isolated vitamin D as its active ingredient. McCollum also showed that when the rats fed a cereal diet were placed outside in the sun, they were protected from rickets. This led to Vitamin D being named the “sunshine vitamin,” but exactly how it prevented rickets was not known until 1937, when Ragnar Nicolaysen at the University of Cambridge determined it was needed for the absorption of calcium from the intestine.
By the 1960s, further research revealed that Vitamin D obtained from sun exposure is biologically inert and has to be converted by passage through the liver, then the kidneys into 25-hydroxyvitamin D, then into the active form, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, also known as vitamin D3.
Besides its role in calcium absorption, Vitamin D was also found to play a role in the functioning of osteoblasts, the cells that form new bones and heal damage to existing ones. Even more excitement about Vitamin D’s role in health emerged when it was discovered that virtually every tissue in the body has receptors for the vitamin. That raised the question of whether Vitamin D had an effect on conditions other than bone strength.
This question was addressed by numerous studies, with a trial conducted by Harvard Medical School researchers being the largest and most impactive. VITAL (Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial) randomized 25,000 adults in a placebo-controlled trial to take either 2,000 IU (50 micrograms) of Vitamin D3, 1 gram of omega-3 fats, or both. Omega-3 fats were chosen because studies had linked these fish oils to reducing blood triglycerides and lowering the risk of heart disease. The subjects were followed for five years and filled out annual questionnaires about numerous health outcomes. Given that some other studies, albeit much smaller ones, had shown benefits associated with Vitamin D supplements, the results were surprising.
In VITAL, Vitamin D supplements did not prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer, did not improve stroke outcomes, did not improve cognition, did not reduce atrial fibrillation, did not change body composition or reduce knee pain. A bit of “data mining” did find fewer cases of advanced cancers detected in the Vitamin D group. An even greater surprise came when the data were analyzed for risk of fractures, something that was expected to be reduced by the bone-strengthening effect of Vitamin D. It wasn’t.
There was no reduction in risk of any kind of fracture, not even in subjects who were taking 1,200 mg of supplemental calcium. Furthermore, not even individuals considered as being “deficient,” based on blood levels of Vitamin D below 20 nanograms per millilitre, were found to benefit from supplements. This would call into question the widespread testing for Vitamin D that usually prompts advice to take a supplement if the level is below 30 nanograms per millilitre. Based on VITAL, there is little evidence for taking Vitamin D supplements, but there is no harm either.
When such a large, well-carried-out study comes up with disappointing results, there is motivation to dig through the data to find something to justify the massive effort and generate headlines. There was a lot of digging, and it paid off.
“Taking Vitamin D Might Keep You Younger” and “Vitamin D Supplements May Slow Biological Aging,” crowed the headlines. These were prompted by researchers comparing the DNA of Vitamin D supplement takers with that of placebo takers. DNA is the genetic information-carrying molecule that is wound like a long thread into structures called chromosomes found in the nucleus of cells. The end of this thread is tightly wound, keeping the rest from unwinding. This end-piece of DNA is called a “telomere,” often being compared with the “aglet” of a shoelace.
Every time a cell divides and its DNA is replicated, a bit of the telomere wears down. This erosion eventually prevents the cell from multiplying and can even lead to its death. Since telomeres shorten with each cell division, their length acts as a “biological clock” signalling aging. Preserving telomere length is therefore associated with slower aging.
In VITAL, telomere length was found to be longer in subjects who took supplements, hence the blazing headlines about the vitamin slowing aging. However, this is a case of the exuberant media being keen to grab attention by converting a small step into a giant leap. Maybe the Vitamin D group had longer telomeres, but this was not reflected by any observable anti-aging effects. Indeed, as mentioned, there was no difference in the incidence of any disease between the experimental and control groups in VITAL, a trial not cherished by the supplement industry.
Science, though, is a neverending story.
Maybe if the trial had lasted longer than five years, benefits would have cropped up. The study also looked only at adults, and maybe Vitamin D levels are more important when children’s bones are developing. Undoubtedly, the next instalment of the Vitamin D story is just around the corner.
In the meantime, I’ll go and take my 15-minute stroll in the noonday sun.