Even after all these years is male bias still affecting women's chances of surviving heart disease?

It has been known for many years that there are differences in how symptoms of heart disease present in male and female patients, yet it appears that this knowledge is still not translating into better health management practices when assessing and treating women with cardiovascular disease and heart failure.

Excerpts from Australian Catholic University, Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Hidden Hearts: Cardiovascular Risk and Disease in Australian Women, September 2016:

* Executive summary/Key findings

In the absence of a true appreciation of the burden and impact of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among Australian women, coupled with a lack of consistent, Australia-wide data, we compiled this report. Using the best available information, we reveal a number of key figures that should concern all Australians:

The five most common forms of CVD are highly prevalent in Australian women aged 35 years and over with 410,000, 177,000 and 162,000 affected by coronary artery disease (CAD), the form of heart failure (HF) most commonly linked to CAD and atrial fibrillation (AF), respectively.

An additional minimum of 90,000 and 30,000 women are hospitalised due to stroke and peripheral artery disease (PAD), each year. In 2016, 21,000, 14,000, 19,000, 12,000 and 3,000 Australian women will have suffered their first hospital admissions with CAD, HF, AF, stroke and PAD, respectively – see Figure 1.

Tragically, approximately 3,400 Australian women each year will suffer a sudden and fatal cardiac event without ever reaching hospital. Every year, these five conditions provoke a minimum of 260,000 (CAD), 73,000 (HF), 122,000 (AF), 90,000 (stroke) and 30,000 (PAD) hospital admissions among Australian women – see Figure 1.

Even with hospital treatment all forms of CVD are deadly and disabling with one in nine (2,200) women admitted for the first time with CAD dead within 28-days, and more than one third admitted for the first time with HF or stroke dead within 12 months.

The annual estimated cost of hospital care for the most common forms of CVD among Australian women alone is more than $3 billion. Within an ageing population in whom levels of most risk factors are at historically high levels, the burden of CVD among Australian women is set to increase for the foreseeable future.

There is still much to be learned in best preventing and treating CVD in Australian women; particularly in vulnerable individuals/communities.

*

* It is well recognised that the natural history and profile of women with CVD are typically different from their male counterparts.

Current management guidelines reflect a male bias due to the poor representation of women in clinical trials of new therapies.

Women are more likely to display dose-related adverse drug events from CVD pharmacotherapies due to smaller body size, higher body fat, different

metabolism and more kidney dysfunction.

Disparity also exists in cardiac rehabilitation with women failing to attend more often than men in addition to clinicians tending to refer men more frequently.

* Evidence-based management for most forms of CVD are based on clinical trials that have a higher proportion of younger men and/or less complex cases.

* CVD disproportionately affects the Indigenous peoples of Australian and in particular Indigenous women who develop and die from CVD at a much younger age.

* CVD represents an enormous health issue for Australian women. It requires a dedicated response, from the community to governments to minimise already high rates of highly preventable cardiovascular events.

Women living in the Northern Rivers region should note that in 2010-2011, the leading cause of death in the Northern NSW Local Health District  was circulatory disease (which includes cardiovascular disease), which was significantly higher than for all NSW - 193/100,000 compared to 167/100,000 according to the December 2015 health fact sheet produced by the NSW North Coast Public Health Unit.

Australian Attorney-General & Liberal Party Senator George Brandis vs independent Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth Justin Gleeson: who has the most to hide?

The marked difference in degree of redaction in copies of the same official letter, submitted by both Australian Attorney-General & Liberal Party Senator  George Brandis and Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth Justin Gleeson to the Senate Inquiry into the Nature and scope of the consultations prior to the making of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016, raises a strong suspicion that Brandis is attempting to massage the truth and has something to hide……

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis v Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson - SIDE by SIDE by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/327282899/Australian-Attorney-General-George-Brandis-v-Solicitor-General-Justin-Gleeson-SIDE-by-SIDE

 BACKGROUND

See: http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/australias-two-most-senior-legal.html

Australians continue to increase data consumption in 2016

Australian Government Dept. of Communications and the Arts, media release, 7 October 2016:

Australian Internet activity statistics – June 2016

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has released the Internet Activity, Australia, June 2016 (cat no 8153.0).

This release presents key indicators on the use of the internet by business, government, and households, as collected from the Internet Activity Survey conducted in respect of the three months ended 30 June 2016. 

Fast facts include (year-on-year represents June 2016 compared to June 2015):

Internet subscriber numbers pushed past 13 million, with a year-on-year increase of 4 per cent to 13.3 million

While there was an almost 130 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of fibre based subscriptions, subscription numbers across other access types remained relatively stable both year-on-year and from the quarter ended December 2015.

Data downloaded via mobile handsets continues to grow rapidly, with a 34 per cent increase from the December quarter and a 69 per cent increase year-on-year.

Data consumption continues to grow, with 2.1 million terabytes downloaded in the three months ended 30 June 2016. There was 51 per cent growth for total data downloaded year-on-year.

See the ABS website for detailed data on the release: 8153.0 - Internet Activity.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0/

Multinational gas and petroleum giant BP withdraws from offshore exploration in the Great Australian Bight - for now.

Multinational gas and petroleum giant BP plc (British Petroleum) operating as BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (BP), in its capacity as operator of the proposed Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Drilling Program has announced that:

We have looked long and hard at our exploration plans for the Great Australian Bight but, in the current external environment, we will only pursue frontier exploration opportunities if they are competitive and aligned to our strategic goals. After extensive and careful consideration, this has proven not to be the case for our project to explore in the Bight.

Concerned citizens and environmental groups can see this as a win – even if business economics and the risk profile for mega storm in the Great Australian Bight may have had a much to do with this decision as the strength of community opposition.

However, it should be noted that BP does not appear to be abandoning its offshore petroleum exploration leases in the GAB which don’t expire until 2020* and, this multinational is not the only oil and gas corporation with exploration licenses in the area - Santos, Chevron and Murphy Australia Oil received exploration permits in 2013-2015 which are current until 2020-2021, Karoon Gas has a permit current until 2022, joining a Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd presence there not due to end until 2020-21.

Petroleum exploration leases current in GAB in 2016

Nor has the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) indicated that it is averse to further mining exploration being undertaken in the Great Australian Bight.

* BP had guaranteed to undertake exploration worth about $605 million and drill four exploration wells in 2016-17 and under a “Good Standing Agreement” entered into with the federal government it is reportedly liable for that amount unless it commits to a new project within Australia or its Norwegian joint venture partner StatOil decides to exercise an option to proceed with the GAB exploration program.

Turnbull Government fails at full marriage equality

Set out below are certain proposed clauses in the same-sex marriage amendments to the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961, as previously amended by the Howard Coalition Government in 2004.

As can plainly be seen this bill does not seek to establish full marriage equality, in that it allows widespread discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens seeking to legally marry in this country.

Should this bill eventually be submitted to the Australian Parliament, the Turnbull Coalition Government proposes the establishment of a Joint Select Committee to review and report on the Exposure Draft.

Excerpt from the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 201X (Exposure Draft) released by Attorney-General George Brandis on 10 October 2016:

"47 Ministers of religion may refuse to solemnise marriages

Refusing to solemnise a marriage despite this Part

(1) A minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite  anything in this Part.

(2) In particular, nothing in this Part prevents a minister of religion from:

(a) making it a condition of solemnising a marriage that:

(i) notice of the intended marriage is given to the minister earlier than this Act requires; or

(ii) additional requirements to those provided by this Act are complied with; and

(b) refusing to solemnise the marriage if the condition is not observed.

Refusing to solemnise a marriage that is not the union of a man and a woman

(3) A minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite any law (including this Part) if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) any of the following applies:

(i) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the minister’s religious body or religious organisation;

(ii) the refusal is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion;

(iii) the minister’s conscientious or religious beliefs do not allow the minister to solemnise the marriage.

Grounds for refusal not limited by this section

(4) This section does not limit the grounds on which a minister of 16 religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage.

6 Before section 48

Insert:

47A Marriage celebrants may refuse to solemnise marriages

(1) A marriage celebrant (not being a minister of religion) may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite any law (including this Part) if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) the marriage celebrant’s conscientious or religious beliefs do not allow the marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage.

Grounds for refusal not limited by this section

(2) This section does not limit the grounds on which a marriage celebrant (not being a minister of religion) may refuse to solemnise a marriage.

47B Religious bodies and organisations may refuse to make facilities available or provide goods or services

(1) A religious body or a religious organisation may, despite any law (including this Part), refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of  a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage, if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) the refusal:

(i) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the religious body or religious organisation; or

(ii) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to facilities made available, and goods and services provided, whether for payment or not.

(3) This section does not limit the grounds on which a religious body or a religious organisation may refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage."

It is noted that under this bill it appears as though discrimination may be practiced against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens seeking to legally marry, as a matter of conscience alone. Therefore a minister of religion whose own peak religious governing body accepts same-sex marriage may still practice discrimination himself/herself and, a civil marriage celebrant does not have to hold religious beliefs in order to discriminate.

This appears to run counter to international human rights law which does not support discrimination based on a general exemption for conscience. As an example see Article 18 Clause 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Australia on 13 August 1980.

It should be further noted that neither the amendment bill nor the Marriage Act itself appear to contain a legal definition of the term "religious organisation".

For the purposes of any newly amended marriage act, is a religious organisation a not-for-profit institution for the advancement and promotion of religious purposes, such as churches, convents, faith-based schools or bible colleges, or is it capable of a broader definition?

Will any bigot or homophobe be able to prominently display a religious icon in their place of business and thereby gain a right to deny goods and services to same-sex couples seeking to organise a wedding?

The road to parliamentary approval of the unfair Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill became a little more difficult to traverse yesterday......

ABC News, 11 October 2016:

A meeting at Parliament House this morning saw Labor MPs and senators vote unanimously to block the bill establishing the plebiscite.

"The experts have unequivocally explained to Labor that the plebiscite would cause harm to gay and lesbian people — particularly, but not exclusively, young people," Mr Shorten said.

"Having met these families, having listened to their stories, I could not in good conscience recommend to the Labor Party that we support the plebiscite about marriage equality.

"The Labor Party, therefore, will in Parliament oppose Malcolm Turnbull's expensive, divisive plebiscite."

The Greens and a number of balance-of-power Senate crossbenchers have also pledged to block the enabling legislation, meaning it will not pass Parliament.

The compulsory Australia-wide ballot on whether to allow same-sex couples to marry was set to happen in February next year.

The Opposition criticised the plebiscite for months and its decision today was widely expected.

Labor is expected to keep pressing for a free vote in Parliament on whether to legalise same-sex marriage.

But a number of senior Government ministers have made it clear that will not happen.

Note: The results of the proposed precuser national plebiscite will be non-binding on MPs and senators and a number of government members have stated that they will not vote for same-sex marriage under any circumstances.

The second U.S. presidential debate reached peak stupid in record time on 10 October 2016

The New York Times article of 10 October 2016 pretty much sums up the second presidential debate:

Donald Trump boiled his decadent campaign down to one message during the presidential debate on Sunday night: hatred of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

With knock-kneed Republican officeholders at last summoning the nerve to desert him, Mr. Trump went to lengths to demonize Hillary Clinton — blaming her even for his own failure to pay taxes — and to remind his hard core of supporters that he is all that stands between her and the presidency.

If he were in charge, Mr. Trump told Secretary Clinton at one point, “You’d be in jail.”

When Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Trump out for his failure to apologize to the minorities, immigrants and women he’s offended, he responded by promising vengeance. Should he win, he said, he would unleash a special prosecutor to investigate her.

Sniffing and glowering, Mr. Trump prowled behind her as Mrs. Clinton presented herself again as the only adult on stage, the only one seeking to persuade the great majority of Americans that she shares their values and aspirations. Mr. Trump, by contrast, fell back on the tricks he has learned from his years in pro wrestling and reality television, making clear how deep his cynicism goes and how little regard he has for his party, let alone the presidency…..

Fortune.com has the published the full transcript online, if readers want to expose themselves to peak stupid.

Moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz well and truly earned their fee - with most of the nastiness and all of the pouting emanating from Donald Trump but towards the end both candidates regularly running over time.

On the basis of the Chilcot report an international law firm is attempting to sue former British prime minister Tony Blair for alleged war crimes & crimes against humanity

Despite the International Criminal Court (ICC) and at least one eminent silk reportedly ruling out the possibility of former British prime minister Tony Blair being prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the law firm Nasser Hashem and Partners is preparing a case to be lodged in both British and international courts.

Gulf News, 5 October 2016:

Dubai: A Dubai-based lawyer has started legal action against former British prime minister Tony Blair, seeking his prosecution for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Advocate Nasser Hashem and his partners in London will register the criminal case against Blair this month at the International Criminal Court and British courts for breaching human rights and committing war crimes that killed thousands of Iraqis.

Hashem and his partners in Cairo, Dubai and London decided to take legal action against the former prime minister after the publication of Chilcot's report on the Iraq war in July. Former British prime minister Gordon Brown announced an inquiry in 2009 and the inquiry's chairman Sir John Chilcot announced his findings in a public statement in July.

Speaking to Gulf News, advocate Hashem said: "Since the results of the inquiry were announced earlier this summer, my partners [in Cairo, Dubai and London] and I have decided to take Blair to court for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that were committed in Iraq. We are taking this legal procedure against Blair since he took the decision [in his capacity as the British prime minister then] to participate with the United States in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the permission of the UK's House of Commons. He produced unreasonable, bogus and wrong information to the House of Commons, according to Chilcot report, and based on that information, the UK participated in that war."

Hashem said Blair falsely and unfoundedly told the House of Commons that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons before the war was launched against Iraq.

According to the Chilcot report, Saddam Hussain did not pose an urgent threat to British interests and that the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty. Also, the report said UK and the US had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council.

"Based on all the lies and allegations that Blair produced before the members of the House of Commons, the decision to go to war alongside with the US was taken. Thousands of Iraqis were killed, injured, displaced and/or shattered. Blair committed war crimes against the people of Iraq and violated human rights. He should be taken to court for the crimes he committed," said Hashem.

A media statement issued earlier by Hashem and his partners said: "Our office in London will take all the necessary legal procedures before the British courts to prove the violations and crimes against humanity that have been committed against human rights in Iraq and breaching the human rights that was settled by International Organisation for Human Rights and to prove the oppression of Blair against Iraq, that led to the destabilisation of the Arab countries, (and) for taking wilful decision and committing grave acts." Hashem and his legal team are expected to announce further details about their legal action against Blair soon.

Nasser Hashem & Partners, media release, 25 July 2016:

Submitting the British former Prime Minister for trial

In this respect, we are ensuring the achievement of the international justice and the enforcement of law. Accordingly, we held a press conference in Cairo in order to start taking legal procedures against the former British Prime Minister "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" before the international Criminal Court for committing War Crimes and crimes against humanity by taking this decision to participate with the United States of America in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the permission of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by presenting unreasonable information to the House of Commons, According to Chilcot report in 2016 before the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

We emphasize that our office in London will take all the necessary legal procedures before the British courts to prove the violations and crimes against humanity that have been committed against human rights in Iraq and breaching the human rights that was settled by International Organization for Human Rights, to prove the oppression of the former British prime Minister "Anthony Blair" against Iraq, that led to the destabilization of the Arab Countries for taking wilful decision and committing grave acts. We will submit all the documents which prove the conviction of the former Prime Minister "Anthony Charles Blair" specifically after his recognition of taking all responsibility of his decision

Since Egypt joined the Security Council, it has the authority to submit the case by the Security Council before the International Criminal Court. We are making investigations with the Egyptian Minister of foreign Affairs because of our dissatisfaction for violating the rights of Arab nation without any right.

It is important to mention that the United Kingdom claims for human rights and world peace, at the same time violating the respect of humanity. We consider that this is contradicting and this major evidence that led to the division of Iraqis, murdering of innocent children, displacement of families and classifying the Arab countries as a source of terrorism. Consequently, we can consider that what happened in Iraq is not an invasion but it is breaching the sovereignty of state without any right for the purpose of hidden aims and accordingly the former British Prime Mister will be convicted

Update​ 1/10/2016

Nasser Hashem & Partners is preparing all the documents regarding "Anthony Blair" Case to be submitted to the International Criminal Court and British Courts for committing war crimes against Iraqi citizens as a prelude to submitting a compensation case against United Kingdom and the United States of America for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Citizens. We are currently preparing a team which will travel to the United Kingdom to proceed to take legal action and there will be a press conference before the flight to brief journalists on the actions that will be taken in the UK.