Teen died from eating a spicy chip as part of social media challenge, autopsy report concludes

posted in: News | 0

BOSTON (AP) — A Massachusetts teen who participated in a spicy tortilla chip challenge on social media died from ingesting a high amount of a chili pepper extract, according to an autopsy report obtained by The Associated Press.

Harris Wolobah, a 10th grader from the city of Worcester, died on Sept. 1, 2023, after eating the chip. He was found unresponsive by police who were called to his home, and brought to a hospital, where he died.

The cause of death was listed as cardiopulmonary arrest “in the setting of recent ingestion of food substance with high capsaicin concentration.”

The 14-year-old boy also had an enlarged heart and a congenital heart defect, according to the report, the findings of which were shared with the AP in an email from Elaine Driscoll, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security.

The cause of death was determined on Feb. 27, and the death certificate was released to the city clerk’s office on March 5, Driscoll said.

The manufacturer of the chip, Paqui, asked retailers to stop selling the product shortly after Harris’ death.

The chip, sold individually for about $10, comes wrapped in foil in a coffin-shaped box containing the warning that it is intended for the “vengeful pleasure of intense heat and pain.” The warning notes that the chip is for adult consumption only, and should be kept out of the reach of children.

Despite the warning, children have had no problem buying the chips. There have been reports from around the country of teens who have gotten sick after taking part in the challenge, including three California high school students who were sent to a hospital. Paramedics were called to a Minnesota school when seven students fell ill after taking part in the challenge.

St. Paul City Council OKs variances for United Village restaurant building by Allianz Field

posted in: News | 0

The St. Paul City Council voted this week to support two zoning variances requested by the developer behind a proposed restaurant building within United Village, the development area around Allianz Field.

The single-story “Shops in the Green” building will be located west of Simpson Street, between Spruce Tree Avenue and Shields Avenue, north of a secondary restaurant building, both of which would open onto patios along the Great Lawn. Both zoning variances were previously denied by the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals.

The zoning code requires that 30% of the wall area along the ground floor on all new commercial buildings be covered in window or door openings, but Snelling-Midway Redevelopment LLC requested that requirement be lowered to 19.6% on the northern building’s northern façade along Spruce Tree Avenue.

The city code also requires a primary pedestrian entrance on street-facing facades such as Spruce Tree Avenue.

Mike Hahm, a consultant for the developer, noted that the building will already have two other entrances, making a third entrance redundant and difficult to monitor.

‘Unique circumstances’

Council Member Anika Bowie, who represents the neighborhood, said given the restaurant building’s general orientation toward the Great Lawn, as well as its sizable mural on the northern façade, “unique circumstances” made the added windows and entrance impractical.

“This plan is going to include a large scale art display, green space, and space for … small businesses,” Bowie said. “The architectural design within the Super Block is very comprehensive.”

Council President Mitra Jalali noted the extra 10% of door and window coverage would detract from the mural. The Union Park District Council had opposed the variance request pertaining to the window and door opening requirement, but supported the variance eliminating the primary pedestrian entrance on Spruce Tree Avenue.

The Board of Zoning Appeals had previously approved four other variance requests reducing the required door and window openings on the building’s southern and eastern façades, as well as on the southern restaurant building’s eastern façade.

The council voted 6-0 on Wednesday to support the developer’s appeals. Council Member Nelsie Yang is on maternity leave.

Related Articles

Local News |


Russell’s Bar and Grill to open in Tavern on Grand space

Local News |


Pauly’s Rooftop Lowertown, summer-only expansion of Selby Ave. bar, to open May 15 overlooking Saints ballpark

Local News |


Vote for your favorite Twin Cities-area restaurant patio

Local News |


Hope Breakfast chef tries to clear the air after questions raised about his charitable giving

Local News |


Owner of Minneapolis-St. Paul-West St. Paul Mexican restaurants charged with tax crimes

Supreme Court sides with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, spurning a conservative attack

posted in: News | 0

By MARK SHERMAN (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a conservative-led attack that could have undermined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The justices ruled 7-2 that the way the CFPB is funded does not violate the Constitution, reversing a lower court and drawing praises from consumers. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, splitting with his frequent allies, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who dissented.

The CFPB was created after the 2008 financial crisis to regulate mortgages, car loans and other consumer finance. The case was brought by payday lenders who object to a bureau rule that limits their ability to withdraw funds directly from borrowers’ bank accounts. It’s among several major challenges to federal regulatory agencies on the docket this term for a court that has for more than a decade been open to limits on their operations.

The CFPB, the brainchild of Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, has long been opposed by Republicans and their financial backers. The bureau says it has returned $19 billion to consumers since its creation.

Unlike most federal agencies, the consumer bureau does not rely on the annual budget process in Congress. Instead, it is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, with a current annual limit of around $600 million.

The federal appeals court in New Orleans, in a novel ruling, held that the funding violated the Constitution’s appropriations clause because it improperly shields the CFPB from congressional supervision.

Thomas reached back to the earliest days of the Constitution in his majority opinion to note that “the Bureau’s funding mechanism fits comfortably with the First Congress’ appropriations practice.”

In dissent, Alito wrote, “The Court upholds a novel statutory scheme under which the powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) may bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight.”

The CFPB case was argued more than seven months ago, during the first week of the court’s term. Lopsided decisions like Thursday’s 7-2 vote typically don’t take so long, but Alito’s dissent was longer than the majority opinion, and two other justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote separate opinions even though they both were part of the majority.

Consumer groups cheered the decision, as did a bureau spokesman.

“For years, lawbreaking companies and Wall Street lobbyists have been scheming to defund essential consumer protection enforcement,” bureau spokesman Sam Gifford said in a statement. “The Supreme Court has rejected their radical theory that would have devastated the American financial markets. The Court repudiated the arguments of the payday loan lobby and made it clear that the CFPB is here to stay.”

Jesse Van Tol, president and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, said the decision upholding the consumer bureau’s funding structure would have positive effects across the U.S. economy.

“It’s always nice to see the courts get something right — especially in this tawdry circumstance where payday loan predators sought to wriggle out of basic oversight using absurd distortions of law and fact,” Van Tol said in a statement.

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and some other business interests backed the payday lenders, mortgage bankers and other sectors regulated by the CFPB cautioned the court to avoid a broad ruling that could unsettle the markets.

In 2020, the court decided another CFPB case, ruling that Congress had improperly insulated the head of the bureau from removal. The justices said the director could be replaced by the president at will but allowed the bureau to continue to operate.

___

Lisa Jarvis: A shocking number of doctors don’t understand menopause

posted in: Society | 0

A new analysis of a controversial study affirms something menopause experts have long argued: For many women, the benefits of short-term hormone replacement therapy outweigh their risks.

The news drops at a time when menopause is having a moment. Celebrities from Halle Berry to Gwyneth Paltrow are talking openly about their journeys, while businesses, the medical establishment and the government are waking up to the needs of the 75 million women in the U.S. experiencing perimenopause, menopause or are postmenopausal.

But it’s a moment that must be backed by solid data, not guesswork. A recent AARP survey estimates that menopause costs the U.S. about $1.8 billion in worker productivity losses and $24 billion in related health care.

To be clear, hormones are not a panacea, nor are they the right choice for every woman. But the messaging around the use of estrogen and progestin has been so muddled for so long that the treatment has become emblematic of the overall state of health care for women who have passed their reproductive years.

Women entering midlife simply aren’t being given straightforward, accurate information from their doctors — too often, they’re told nothing at all, or worse, given the wrong message.

All of the confusion began back in 2002, when the world of women’s health was rocked by the abrupt cessation of a large study called the Women’s Health Initiative. Designed to understand whether hormones could lower a woman’s risk of certain diseases, the researchers instead found treatment was raising the risk of heart disease, strokes and breast cancer. The message was that women taking hormones should stop them and others shouldn’t start.

That altered the course of care, depriving a generation of women from therapy that is known to treat common menopause symptoms, like hot flashes, night sweats, vaginal dryness and bone loss.

The new data, shared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came from following the women enrolled in the study for 20 years. Researchers found that decades on, hormone therapy could offer meaningful benefits while posing few risks for women in the early stages of menopause. It is also safe to use for most women in their 60s and 70s who are experiencing more severe symptoms, like hot flashes and night sweats.

Importantly, HRT did not increase the risk of heart attacks. Nor did short-term use of both estrogen and progestin raise the risk of breast cancer. Moreover, since the Women’s Health Initiative was halted, a raft of newer products have emerged to offer different delivery methods — often at much lower doses — that might further minimize their health risks, though the authors noted more study is needed.

For menopause experts, this update feels like old news. But having it stated in plain language in a medical journal is still a big deal.

Not all doctors have kept up with the times. Lisa Larkin, president of The Menopause Society, says she regularly hears from women whose physicians refuse to prescribe HRT, with one recently telling her that her doctor claimed to adhere to a “hormone-free practice.”

The lingering divisiveness was underscored by a series of editorials published in March in The Lancet arguing that menopause is a natural process that has become over-medicalized. The editors focus their critique on HRT, suggesting companies are appropriating “feminist narratives” to push hormone therapy without acknowledging the risks.

Of course, we should be wary of movements that want to turn a normal life process into a disease or sell us something to fix a problem they’ve invented. But the authors go on to perpetuate myths about the universal dangers of HRT — now firmly debunked. And just because symptoms are “natural” doesn’t mean they aren’t uncomfortable or disruptive — or undeserving of treatment.

Rather than being over-treated, most women “are left to navigate their perimenopausal and menopausal years with no medical guidance whatsoever,” as a group of Stanford University menopause specialists noted in their response to The Lancet.

Doctors in the U.S. aren’t sufficiently educated to offer women good advice. One survey of U.S. medical trainees found that only 7% said they felt sufficiently trained to help women during menopause. Another survey of OB-GYN trainees found that less than a third were exposed to a menopause curriculum during their residency. Yes, you read that right: Even some gynecologists aren’t offered guidance on ushering women through perimenopause and menopause.

That’s left women to fill in the blanks themselves. They might find solace in the upswell of specialists taking to social media to put out accurate information about menopause. Or they could consult a cluster of new books (from “The Menopause Manifesto” to “The New Menopause”) that empower women with solid information and the right questions to ask.

Still, I worry about how much work we are putting on patients. Menopause is a transition that affects half the population; women shouldn’t have to rely on social media, which can have as many charlatans as true experts, nor should they have to sift through the medical studies themselves.

A few burgeoning efforts could help. President Joe Biden’s recent executive order creating a fund to close the knowledge gap around women’s health includes money for improving our understanding of and care for menopause. And Congress should pass a bill introduced recently by a bipartisan group of senators intended to support training, research and awareness around menopause with $275 million over five years.

It’s a start. For a transition that half the population will experience, it should not be so hard to have a thoughtful conversation with a knowledgeable physician.

Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Cory Franklin: Was Sweden’s COVID-19 approach superior to that of the U.S.?

Opinion |


Trudy Rubin: The biggest story last week was not Stormy Daniels or campus protests

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: Biden’s real mistake in pausing military aid to Israel

Opinion |


Tyler Cowen: No, low-skilled immigrants don’t cost taxpayers money

Opinion |


Seth Greenland: Have we learned nothing? The protester’s taunt, ‘Go back to Poland,’ is grotesque