List of All Articles with Tag 'am'

A man who died of brain cancer was misdiagnosed with anxiety and told to “breathe into a paper bag”. Keith Evans was 21 when he collapsed during a suspected panic attack in February 2010. He later developed painful headaches and was given tools to manage his anxiety. Weeks later during a visit to his GP, he was referred for an MRI scan where he was diagnosed with a glioblastoma, a fast-growing and aggressive brain tumour. Despite being given six months to live, Keith survived five-and-half years. He died aged 27 in October 2015. Keith’s mum, Lorraine, from Bulkington, Warwickshire, said: “We felt like paranoid parents. “Although at the time he was interviewing for a new job, we thought this could have caused some unrest but being told he was having panic attacks seemed odd. “After multiple occasions where we called 999 we were told the same thing and Keith was given ways to manage his anxiety; including breathing into a paper bag.” Throughout his cancer battle, he raised tens of thousands of pounds for charity whilst undergoing radiotherapy and life-long chemotherapy treatment. Lorraine added: “Keith wanted to be one of the 5% of GBM patients who survive more than five years. “He made dramatic changes to his lifestyle and took up cycling as he was no longer allowed to drive. “He made a name for himself within the cycling community. A favourite event which came about inspired by his journey was called Ride on Keith. “He got to take part in the event before coming off his bike due to a seizure in 2015. Soon his mobility deteriorated, and a scan showed the tumour had returned.” This weekend, dozens of cyclists are expected to take part in the final bike ride in memory of the father-of-one from Bulkington who died of brain cancer in October 2015, raising funds for Brain Tumour Research. The final ‘Ride on Keith’ event will take place this Saturday (10 June). Since its inception the event has raised more than £7,500 for Brain Tumour Research. Amongst the riders will be Keith’s widow, Harriet Evans and their son, 10-year-old Joel, who was just one when Keith died. The 25, 55 and five-mile children’s friendly cycle ride will set off from Makins Fishery on Bazzard Road at 8:30am. Lorraine said: “For over a decade, we’ve helped to raise the profile of brain tumours and worked towards driving more funding to find a cure for the disease, with Keith at the helm of the events when he was alive. “He achieved so much in the five-and-half-years he survived including cycling 275 miles from London to Paris and covering the 1,000 mile route from Land’s End to John O’Groats over a ten-day period - all during treatment. “Since his death, the event has been a fantastic way to remember him and this year we hope to create lasting memories whilst raising money for Brain Tumour Research. “Although this is the last event of its kind, we will continue to work with the charity to raise awareness for more research into the disease.” One in three people know someone affected by a brain tumour. They kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer, yet just 1% of the national spend on cancer research has been allocated to brain tumours since records began in 2002. Mel Tiley, community development manager at Brain Tumour Research, said: “We’re grateful to Keith’s family for sharing his story. “It’s wonderful to hear of everything Keith achieved after receiving a shocking diagnosis. “His story reminds us that brain tumours are indiscriminate, and they can affect anyone and any age. “If we are to understand the complexity of each diagnosis, we need more funding to research the disease.” Read More ‘Fearful’ Shannen Doherty shares devastating cancer update Cancer patients face worsening treatment delays due to lack of staff, finds report Origins of masturbation traced to primates 40 million years ago ‘Fearful’ Shannen Doherty shares devastating cancer update Fitness fanatic, 26, diagnosed with stage 4 cancer after feeling dizzy Do yoga to cut cancer risk, say scientists

MEXICO CITY Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi will visit Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela next week, Iran's state news agency

A mother has sparked a debate after criticising a parent who wouldn’t give her child a piece of birthday cake. Kat Stickler shared a recent video on TikTok about her experience with a fellow mother. She confessed that she was going to “mom shame” someone, before noting that the only other people she’s “mom shamed” before were herself and her own mother. Before adding another parent to her list, she asked viewers if she was “entitled” or if what happened was “messed up”. In the video, she explained how she and her daughter noticed a group of children at a birthday party in a park. “Two hours ago, literally right now, MK and I were at the park in our neighbourhood,” she said, referring to her daughter. “And it was us and this birthday group…These kids are having their birthday party. MK’s playing with them for half an hour. They’re making friends, it was nice. It was actually very cute.” Stickler then explained that when it was time to sing happy birthday, her three-year-old joined the rest of the children at the party. “She’s one of the group right now. They’re welcoming her with open arms,” she said. “Or, so I thought.” When she noticed her daughter’s “intention of grabbing a piece of cake,” she decided to follow her child “to make sure it’s OK, as a formality.” “Honestly, I was like, obviously it’s OK. It’s cake. It’s a massive cake. There’s lots of leftover pieces,” she explained. However, Stickler said that the party host then stepped in and stopped MK from getting a slice of cake: “The mother takes the plate away from MK, and gets down to her level, says: ‘You cannot eat this cake, OK. This is not your birthday party. These are not your friends. Where’s your mother?’” She concluded her video by placing her hands over her mouth, to show her shocked reaction to the parent’s comments. As of 7 June, Stickler’s video has more than 10.1m views, with many people in the comments sympathising with MK. They also criticised the birthday host for how she spoke to the three-year-old. @katstickler No cake for me thanks, I’m full…of rage👹 ♬ original sound - Kat “That’s so sad,” one wrote, while another added: “My jaw dropped.” “The part that gets me is the ‘these are not your friends,’” a third wrote. “They’ve been playing for a half an hour. To kids, that’s friendship.” Other people shared how they would have handled the situation if a child they didn’t know wanted a piece of cake at a party. “I may have said, ‘Let’s check with your mom if it’s okay for you to have a piece?’ Allergies ya know. Then a new friend would have been given cake,” one wrote. Another agreed: “The only appropriate response is, ‘Run and ask your mom if you’re allowed to have cake.’ Reengages the parent and gives you a second to count the slices.” However, some people said that they wouldn’t have let their children hang out with the children at this birthday party in the first place. “This is a hard spot. I wouldn’t have let my kids walk over personally. We weren’t invited and playing together at the park isn’t a invite to a private moment,” one wrote. “But also I would never take cake from a child and say that. I would’ve asked for mom first.” “Personally I’d avoid the situation and move my kids,” another added. “I’m normally the one to encourage connections but not at a party my kid wasn’t invited to. Speaking to Today, Stickler noted that after this incident happened, she took her child to get a dessert of her own. She also said that MK was “totally fine” after hearing the parent’s remark. “People have been asking me, ‘What did you say to the mom?’ The mom was literally the least of my concerns,” Stickler explained. “I was worried about MK.” The Independent has contacted a representative for Stickler for comment. Read More Mother reveals the sweet meaning behind viral graduation gift for her daughter Daughter reveals stark contrast between her parents’ homes: ‘Complete opposites’ Mother hit with deluge of abuse for taking toddler’s packed lunch to a restaurant I tried anti-bloating pills for two weeks, and now I know the gassy truth How to protect pets from wildfire smoke amid air quality alert Gamer finds indent in head from prolonged headset use after shaving his hair

New York City and much of the tri-state area has been blanketed by smoke caused by raging wildfires in Canada. The poor air conditions have continued to spread throughout the northeastern United States. On Wednesday (7 June), New York City was ranked number one for the worst air quality in the world, with the Air Quality Index (AQI) at 342 and air pollution levels described as “hazardous”. Many officials have since advised people to limit their time outdoors and wear masks to protect themselves from the smoke. Public schools have also cancelled outdoor activities, including recess and gym classes. Follow for live air quality alert updates. Experts estimate that each hour of exposure to wildfire smoke is equivalent to smoking cigarettes continuously for the same amount of time, but that’s just for humans. Imagine how wildfire smoke affects our beloved pets? In fact, poor air quality may pose an even greater risk to animals because of their much smaller size. Here’s how to protect your pets from wildfire smoke as air quality alerts continue throughout New York. The biggest danger to pets comes from the fine particles found in air pollutants, which can get into the lungs and cause a variety of health issues – like eye irritation or respiratory problems. Some of the most vulnerable pets are older animals suffering from heart or lung disease. Certain breeds, such as pugs and bulldogs, may be especially at risk of inhaling too much smoke, according to the American Kennel Club. There are several signs that indicate a pet may be having problems from poor air quality. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), some of the symptoms include coughing or gagging (particularly in cats), red or watery eyes, inflammation of the throat or mouth, trouble breathing, fatigue or weakness, and reduced appetite or thirst. The first thing pet owners should do at the sign of wildfire smoke exposure is to call their veterinarian. In the meantime, saturating a cotton ball with lukewarm water and squeezing it over an animal’s eyes can help with irritation and flush them out. In order to protect pets from wildfire smoke, try to reduce their exposure as much as possible. For outdoor pets like horses or livestock, bring these animals into a room with good ventilation, such as a utility room or garage. The EPA also states that smoke is especially tough on pet birds because of the construction of their respiratory systems. Birds that are exposed to too much smoke may act lethargic or struggle to breathe, and may sit in the bottom of their cages. Keeping the indoor air clean can also help protect animals against wildfire smoke. Pet owners should keep their windows closed and their pets in a room with an air purifier. Activities such as frying foods, burning candles, or using a fireplace can also be bad for pets because it adds air pollutants to your home. If necessary, pet owners take short potty breaks with their dog or cat before returning inside. It’s probably not best to go on a long run with an animal when air quality alerts are in effect, either. Read More Air quality – live: New York hits record pollution as Canada wildfire smoke shuts airports and risks millions From masks to AC units: All the dos and don’ts to keep safe from wildfire smoke New York air pollution spikes to hazardous ratings as wildfire smoke plagues East Coast How to protect pets from wildfire smoke amid air quality alert From masks to AC units: All the dos and don’ts to keep safe from wildfire smoke I tried anti-bloating pills for two weeks, and now I know the gassy truth

Our bellies have always been the target of derision and ire. Long have they been poked and prodded. Sighed at and sucked in. Reprimanded and insulted. But ever since social media became the new WebMD for chronic self-diagnosers, it’s been open season on every little bodily function. Every involuntary twitch, skin bump and mood shift has been analysed to death – but none more so than the dreaded bloat. Stomach bloating can happen for all sorts of reasons. Often the main culprit is a big meal. It’s that feeling of being uncomfortably full and needing to undo the top button of your jeans, as if you’ve just had a particularly heavy Sunday roast. Unless you have real food intolerances or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or the symptom is caused by hormonal changes, bloating is the body’s normal reaction to eating a little too much. It usually subsides after a few hours. But this is 2023. A bit of bloating is no longer something you can just wait a few hours to get rid of – social media dictates that it needs to be gone immediately, and if it doesn’t then there must be something wrong with you. And not to stop there, either. You should also be cutting 10 different types of foods out of your life, doing five simple exercises 200 times a day and taking an assortment of supplements and pills because God forbid your stomach be round for the next two hours. According to Dr Tamara Alireza, a functional medicine specialist at Skinfluencer London, bloating should be taken seriously if it doesn’t come and go with food. If it becomes a chronic problem, or is accompanied by other symptoms such as persistent stomach and pelvic pain, changes to bowel habits, unexpected weight loss, fatigue and fever, vomiting, or bleeding, it may be something different entirely. “Excess bloating can be linked to IBS, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and coeliac disease, but also to more serious conditions,” she says. But we are a society obsessed with quick fixes, and anti-bloating pills have become a popular “cure” for the woes of a distended belly. Last month, fitness influencer Sam Cutler took it to new heights when she provided the pills for her wedding guests during the meal. Some viewers of her TikTok video – which sparked so much horror that it rapidly went viral – claimed that the pills were essentially “laxatives”. The glut of brands that have emerged in recent years would disagree, though. Many claim to use all-natural ingredients to “speed up digestion” and reduce gas without a laxative effect. Admittedly, curiosity got the better of me. I am lucky enough not to suffer from any particularly gut-churning conditions, but I do have eyes bigger than my stomach. It means I regularly end up regretting wearing trousers to a meal, cursing myself as my belly strains against the waistband. Could these pills really make me feel more comfortable after a big dinner, or would they just lead to some unfortunate toilet habits? I am kindly sent a couple of packs by Wild Dose, which lists extracts of ginger, liquorice, fennel seed, turmeric, peppermint leaf and dandelion root alongside a “proprietary enzyme complex” and a probiotic blend in each brown pill. They smell very herbal and are a rather unappealing greenish-brown colour – it initially makes me wonder if it’s an omen for what my guts are about to experience. After two weeks of taking them daily, I found that they did make a slight difference in my post-meal stupor and I feel comfortable quicker than before. However, the change has been marginal and, if anything, they made me more gassy, to the chagrin of my significant other. The medical community is reluctant to support the efficacy of similar supplements, as there remains little clinical research to back up their claims. Dr Alireza describes anti-bloat pills as a “Band-Aid on a fire hydrant” for people who have genuine problems with their gut. “I generally would not recommend taking any pills to counteract the bloating,” she says, “rather I would be keen to first determine the source of the issue.” She points to her practice, which aims to determine the root cause of symptoms and treat it – instead of providing temporary fixes. But I think the real reason behind social media’s obsession with bloating has nothing to do with #guthealth. Instead, it is our inherent fatphobia and fear of fatness that fuel this battle against the bloat. Are we so afraid of looking fat for even a couple of hours that we flock to pills and exercises with such abandon? Given the way people have fallen over themselves to get their hands on Ozempic, a drug intended to help diabetes patients but which has made a name for itself as a weight-loss miracle, it appears the answer is yes. It’s no mistake, either, that women are the primary targets for anti-bloating content online. Studies show that women are twice as likely to experience it as men, particularly during menstruation and menopause because of hormonal fluctuations. But the expectation for women to maintain at least the illusion of thinness at all times is also much higher. Many of us learned at an early age how to suck in our stomachs and – even as adults – keep them sucked in pretty much all day. As I write this, I realise that I’ve been subconsciously engaging my core muscles despite sitting behind a desk. No wonder the promise of no more bloating is so appealing, if it makes looking mildly smaller less of a chore. Joanna Dase, fitness expert and operations director of female-focused health clubs Curves, says that any medical conditions should be diagnosed by qualified professionals rather than social media. She acknowledges that while bloating can affect body image, no one should worry about your normal, natural responses to digestion. “If you have a professional opinion and there is no health problem related to it, then you just need to have an actual understanding of your body and its natural functions, and being OK with yourself. It’s just how your body breaks down food.” Read More Wellness gurus claim your hormones are out to get you – but is it just another scam? ‘Thanks Pfizer’: The weird world of shakes, health anxiety and illness online A One Direction fan claimed she had a brain tumour. Five years after her death, we still need answers How to protect pets from wildfire smoke amid air quality alert Gamer finds indent in head from prolonged headset use after shaving his hair From masks to AC units: All the dos and don’ts to keep safe from wildfire smoke

UK opposition leader Keir Starmer will commit his Labour Party to boost domestic steel-making as he battles to

Millions of Americans woke up to apocalyptic, orange skies Wednesday as thick smoke from wildfires in Canada moved

Russian forces have been shooting at Ukrainian rescuers trying to reach flooded areas in the Kherson region that are under Russian control, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Wednesday.

As it pushes to renew a cornerstone law that authorizes major surveillance programs, the Biden administration faces an American public that's broadly skeptical of common intelligence practices and of the need to sacrifice civil liberties for security. Congress in the coming months will debate whether to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Section 702 authorizes U.S. spy agencies to collect large amounts of foreign communications for intelligence purposes ranging from stopping spies to listening in on allies and foes. Those collection programs also sweep up U.S. citizen communications that can then be searched by intelligence and law enforcement officers. The new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that Democrats and Republicans have similar views on surveillance tactics, while Republicans have become substantially less likely over the last decade to say it's at least sometimes necessary to sacrifice freedom in response to threats. U.S. intelligence officials say Section 702 is necessary to protect national security and to counter China, Russia and other adversaries. They credit the program with better informing U.S. diplomats and enabling operations like last year's strike to kill a key plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But officials will have to overcome sharp divisions in Congress and bipartisan anger at the FBI, though most observers still believe Section 702 will be renewed in some form. Driving a political shift is increasing skepticism among Republican elected officials of the FBI and intelligence agencies. Conservatives have battered the FBI for misleading the primary surveillance court in its investigation into former President Donald Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Trump and other top Republicans often accuse the so-called government “deep state” of using its powers to target conservatives. Historically, “the left flank has been the more vocal objector to government surveillance on privacy and civil liberties grounds,” said Carter Burwell, who was chief counsel to Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, when the law was last renewed in early 2018. ”Over the past five or 10 years, with the rise of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, call it the antigovernment wing of the Republican Party, that is an equally vocal and powerful plurality," said Burwell, now a lawyer at the firm Debevoise & Plimpton. The poll asked U.S. adults whether they support several practices authorized by Section 702. It found that 28% of adults support the government listening to phone calls made outside of the U.S. without a warrant, while 44% oppose the practice. Views are similar about the U.S. reading emails sent between people outside of the U.S. without a warrant. The public was more receptive to surveillance of activity outside of the U.S. a decade after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. That shifted significantly by the 20th anniversary of the attacks in 2021. In the latest poll, 48% of Americans this year said they believed it necessary to sacrifice their rights and freedoms to prevent terrorism, down from 54% in 2021 and nearly two-thirds in 2011. That shift was especially dramatic among Republicans, with just 44% saying that's sometimes necessary compared with 69% in 2011. Among Democrats, 55% still say so, similar to the 59% who said so in 2011. Sarah Apwisch, a 57-year-old from Three Rivers, Michigan, described herself as somewhat opposed to the monitoring of foreign emails and phone calls. A Democrat, Apwisch said she was “mostly pro-FBI” but concerned after years of negative stories about the bureau. “Honestly, I don’t want to hear anything about the FBI,” she said. “I want the FBI to go do their business and not be in the news because they’re doing their job well and not doing things that make waves. How they do that, I don’t know.” Apwisch also said she supports the FBI and other agencies trying to hunt down enemy spies, but was uncertain about whether the FBI should also use foreign intelligence to investigate other U.S. crimes. White adults were somewhat more likely to say they were opposed to various forms of surveillance — 48% said they opposed the government listening to foreign calls without a warrant — than Black or Hispanic adults, each at 34%. Rob Redding, a 47-year-old journalist who lives in New York City, said he was neutral about many surveillance practices — but said he felt that way because as a Black man, he didn't expect to have privacy. Redding mentioned the FBI's spying in the 1960s on Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders as well as officials in Black nationalist movements. “As a Black man in America, as someone who speaks out about the government all the time, I understand that Black people and especially Black leadership cannot trust America," Redding said. In Congress, some Democrats and Republicans have found common cause over their complaints about Section 702. Two lawmakers earlier this year issued a statement calling for an end to U.S. surveillance without a warrant. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chairs the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus, while Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, is a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. “We must take this opportunity to reform Section 702 and overhaul privacy protections for Americans so that they truly protect the civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy rights that are foundational to our democracy,” Jayapal and Davidson said. Previous lawmaker efforts to require warrants for searching intelligence databases have failed. Intelligence officials argue they have ramped up training for agents searching the databases and tightened requirements to consult with lawyers on sensitive queries. Supporters of Section 702 argue most U.S. adults want the government to stop foreign adversaries even if they state misgivings about how American intelligence operates. Glenn Gerstell, a former general counsel at the National Security Agency who is advocating for Section 702 to be extended, noted that while Congress has to be responsive to public opinion, “some of this gets pretty technical and isn’t easily understood by the public.” He said he still believed the law would be renewed with some amendments to bolster civil liberties protections and enshrine into law changes that the FBI has made in response to a series of wrongful uses of foreign intelligence. “At the end of the day, I think most members of Congress understand the value of the statute and understand that when we don’t have the statute, there is no substitute,” Gerstell said. ___ Associated Press writer Emily Swanson contributed to this report. ___ The poll of 1,081 adults was conducted March 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.0 percentage points. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide Haitians are dying of thirst and starvation in severely overcrowded jails As winter warms, farmers in southern US find ways to adapt Smoky haze blanketing US, Canada could last for days as wildfires rage, winds won't budge

The US solar market is on track to more than double over the next five years as the

Wildfires continue to ravage large tracts of forest in Canada, with little sign weather will provide much help

Crypto exchange Binance and related entities shuttled some $70 billion through accounts at now-defunct Silvergate Bank and Signature