Lady Gaga To Headline Super Bowl Halftime Show

Get ready, little monsters, Lady Gaga is set to headline this season’s Super Bowl halftime show.

The performer made the announcement Thursday on Twitter.

“It’s not an illusion. The rumors are true,” the tweet read. “This year the SUPER BOWL goes GAGA”

Lady Gaga performed a memorable rendition of the national anthem during Super Bowl 50 earlier this year. Beyonce, Coldplay and Bruno Mars headlined the halftime show.

According to a report from Billboard, Gaga’s well-received national anthem performance was a deciding factor in her selection for the Super Bowl 51 halftime show on Feb. 5, 2017, at Houston’s NRG Stadium.

JEFF KRAVITZ VIA GETTY IMAGES

The Super Bowl halftime show is “the most-watched musical event of the year,” the NFL said in its announcement of Lady Gaga. More than 116.5 million viewers in the U.S. watched last season’s show.

Lady Gaga’s newest album, “Joanne,” is set to be released Oct. 21.

Source: Lady Gaga To Headline Super Bowl Halftime Show

Removing both ovaries speeds aging in premenopausal women: study

Story highlights

  • Premenopausal women who had both ovaries removed to prevent cancer aged faster, a study finds
  • Estrogen therapy following the surgery reduced the risk of some illnesses

(CNN)A surgery recommended to women as a way to prevent ovarian cancer is unethical in many cases, say Mayo Clinic researchers.

Women under 46 who had both ovaries removed experienced a marked increase in eight chronic health conditions, including coronary artery disease, depression, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and osteoporosis. The procedure gained attention when actress Angelina Jolie wrote about her experience in The New York Times: “I know my children will never have to say, ‘Mom died of ovarian cancer.’ “
Looking at the medical records of all the women living in Olmsted County, Minnesota, the researchers identified those who had undergone a bilateral oophorectomy: removal of both ovaries.
“A total of 1,653 women underwent an oophorectomy, and we identified also an equal number of women of same age who did not undergo an oophorectomy,” explained Dr. Walter Rocca, lead author of the study, which was published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings. “Then, we compared how fast these 3,306 women aged over an average follow-up period of 14 years.”
To measure the speed of aging, Rocca and his co-authors looked at the number and type of each woman’s illnesses.
Aging happens at every level within the body, explained Rocca, so when the cells and the organs start to malfunction, sign and symptoms of diseases appear. “Therefore, a woman who receives at a younger age multiple diagnoses is believed to undergo accelerated aging,” he said.
Analyzing the collected data and comparing the two groups of women, Rocca discovered that women under 46 who had undergone the surgery experienced a higher incidence of 18 chronic conditions (except cancer) and were more likely to have multiple chronic conditions.
Yet estrogen therapy following the surgery reduced the risk of some illnesses. The lack of estrogen may accelerate aging in women, according to Rocca.

Estrogen and aging

The ovaries are almond-size glands that supply a woman with her vital hormones, including the primary sex hormone estrogen. Every month, either the right or left ovary produces a single ripe egg for fertilization. To remove the ovaries of a young woman would hurl her into menopause — the hinge of a woman’s life, the moment she is no longer fertile.
Even after menopause, though, the ovaries continue to produce hormones, including testosterone and androstenedione, which are then changed into estrogen by other cells in her body.
Doctor’s recommend estrogen therapy after a bilateral oophorectomy, yet many women do not take it or discontinue it prematurely. Rocca believes this may be related to the difficulty and the cost of taking a medication for a decade or more.
But even if women followed the recommendation, doctors “remain uncertain about the optimal dose,” said Rocca, or whether a patch, say, is better than a pill. Worse, hormone therapy doesn’t take care of every potential harmful consequence of the surgery, including depression, Parkinson’s disease and glaucoma.
“It’s more evidence that you should carefully consider whether you should be removing ovaries,” said Dr. James Liu, chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center
The strength of the study, according to Liu, is that the two groups of women — those who had their ovaries removed versus those who didn’t — were fairly uniform.
Rocca and his colleagues also accounted for each woman’s illnesses before undergoing surgery and then factored them into the analysis, noted Dr. William Parker, a clinical professor at UCLA School of Medicine and director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center.
“Therefore, you couldn’t use that as a reason to explain away the differences in the outcomes,” Parker said. “Rocca answered that potential criticism right up front.”
Considering the study, both Liu and Parker noted how attitudes about bilateral oophorectomy have changed over time.

Official guidelines

For about 35 years, most doctors recommended that women who needed a hysterectomy also consider having their ovaries removed to prevent ovarian cancer, explained Parker.
After all, ovarian cancer is particularly lethal — both difficult to detect and difficult to cure. In 2013, about 21,000 women in the US had ovarian cancer, and 14,276 women died from it, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Hearing these numbers, most women having a hysterectomy would choose to have removed both their ovaries as well, even if they were of average risk. Only women who carry a BRCA gene mutation are considered at high risk for ovarian cancer.
The current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists read, “The most effective method of preventing ovarian cancer is surgical removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes. …The potential benefit in cancer risk reduction for premenopausal women at average risk of ovarian cancer must be balanced with the consequences of premature loss of estrogen production.”
The OB/GYN group’s guidelines do add a word of caution. Strong consideration should be given to retaining normal ovaries in premenopausal women who are not at increased genetic risk of ovarian cancer. However, in practice, many doctors may still recommend removal of both ovaries to premenopausal women at average risk.
In Europe, the procedure is recommended for high-risk women only, beginning at age 40, according to Murat Gultekin, vice president of the European Society of Gynecological Oncology. Yet routine practices really differ from center to center, he said.
Removing both ovaries should not be considered “an ethically acceptable option” for women who are not in the high risk group for cancer and it should be discontinued, Rocca noted in a statement. Still, it may take time before the old practice fades into the past.
According to Parker, 17 years is the average time before evidence-based medical ideas take hold in community practices. He believes removal of the fallopian tubes may be prevention enough for many women of average risk.
Liu agrees: “We are now understanding as we do genotyping of ovarian cancers that many of the cancers we thought previously arose only in the ovaries actually come from the fallopian tubes.”

Source: Removing both ovaries speeds aging in premenopausal women: study – 

Why ‘Pranks’ Involving Grabbing Women Are No Laughing Matter

By; Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy It’s really not OK to touch strangers without their permission. (Photo: AKM-GSI)

Source: Why ‘Pranks’ Involving Grabbing Women Are No Laughing Matter

At Fenty x Puma, Rihanna’s Mom Says She’s Met Drake

By; Faran Krentcil image

Source: At Fenty x Puma, Rihanna’s Mom Says She’s Met Drake

The Money Is Gone: A Look At The Pump-And-Dump In Penny Stocks

THE INTERCEPT

 

Chris DiIorio had just lost a million dollars.

This was back in 2006. DiIorio, who was 39 at the time, had recently moved with his new wife from Boston to Castle Pines, Colorado, a leafy suburb of Denver, and was toiling in finance as a market researcher, analyzing the financial statements of public companies and giving recommendations to portfolio managers.

He had previously worked on Wall Street as an institutional equity trader and research analyst for a subsidiary of the now-defunct investment bank Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jenrette. He had 13 years experience executing massive trades for large mutual fund clients like Fidelity and Putnam.

MATT SLABY FOR THE INTERCEPT
Chris DiIorio

But in his new life, DiIorio happened upon a technology company called E Mobile (symbol: EMTK), a small computer chipmaker that claimed to hold patents on an antenna-type Wi-Fi router and other products. He reviewedcompanypress releases, as well as investor chatter online claiming that E Mobile’s chips were provoking interest from Chinese content companies.

E Mobile didn’t trade on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq, however. It was an over-the-counter stock, traded on an electronic exchange called thePink Sheets that is home to what are commonly called “penny stocks.”

A penny stock is actually any equity that trades for $5 a share or less. But many shares can be had for a literal penny, or even a fraction of one. They are purchased on the Pink Sheets and the over-the-counter Bulletin Board market, through your regular brokerage account.

THE INTERCEPT

Not every penny stock is suspect; some are simply startup companies working their way to larger exchanges. But they do lurk on the dark edges of the financial markets, with sudden volumes and massive volatility. Regulation and reporting vary from light to nonexistent.

“They don’t have the same standards,” said Joseph Borg, director of the Alabama Securities Commission, who achieved fame by investigating Jordan “The Wolf of Wall Street” Belfort’s company Stratton Oakmont for penny stock fraud in the 1990s. “Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that’s where the money is. This is the easiest place to manipulate something.”

The Pink Sheets’ own website warns that it “offers trading in a wide spectrum of securities” and that “With no minimum financial standards, this market includes foreign companies that limit their disclosure, penny stocks and shells, as well as distressed, delinquent, and dark companies not willing or able to provide adequate information to investors. As Pink requires the least in terms of company disclosure, investors are strongly advised to proceed with caution and thoroughly research companies before making any investment decisions.”

But DiIorio didn’t know that at the time.

On Wall Street, he had executed multimillion share trades, usually of blue chip companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, like IBM or General Electric.

“I had never invested in a penny stock before,” DiIorio said. “I was not super sophisticated in this world.” But he decided to take a flyer on E Mobile, based on its promising news. “I bought this company on hype.”

Between February and May 2005, DiIorio bought over 3.7 million shares of E Mobile, mostly through his rollover IRA account with TD Ameritrade. The total cost: $100,000, or a little over 3 cents a share. It was a big position, but this was retirement money he was trying to grow, and if it paid off, the payday would be tremendous.

E Mobile bounced around for a year, not doing much. The CEO, Nan Hu, personally called DiIorio, asking him to invest more through a “private placement”: an off-market offering of stock to select investors.

DiIorio declined. “I was already up to my eyeballs. I said, ‘I’m good with my position.’” Attempts to reach Hu for comment were unsuccessful.

Then, in March 2006, E Mobile announced a “reverse merger” with Best Rate Travel, a private company specializing in online vacation booking. Adrian Stone replaced Hu as CEO. To DiIorio, it was a puzzling maneuver for a chipmaker. “They announced a merger with a travel company?” he said. “What the fuck?”

As part of the merger, E Mobile changed its name to Best Rate Travel, altered its stock ticker symbol to BTVL, and did a 1-1,000 “reverse stock split.”

You’ve probably heard of a stock split; it can happen when a company’s share price gets unmanageably high. So when a stock hits, say, $200, investors who owned one share receive two, each priced at $100.

Well, the opposite can happen, too. Best Rate Travel’s reverse split gave existing investors like DiIorio way fewer shares — at a way higher price.

As a major shareholder, DiIorio was offered a slightly better deal: a conversion to preferred shares of E Mobile at a lower reverse split rate of 1-to-30, and then a conversion at 3-to-1 to Best Rate Travel. After all that, he was left with 373,599 BTVL shares.

The merger hype, repeated in a feedback loop of positive press releases, moved the stock. DiIorio recalls it peaking at $3.50 by September 2006, giving his holdings a value of around $1.3 million.

“I thought this was the exception to everything I knew about the markets,” DiIorio said. “Cheap stocks are cheap for a reason.” But the success fed DiIorio’s ego. He felt like he beat the odds, vindicating his stock-picking acumen.

There was a problem, however. Best Rate Travel structured the conversion with a “lock-up” agreement, restricting shareholders like DiIorio from selling the stock for a year. This is common for newly public companies.

But it left DiIorio helpless when the stock plummeted from $3.50 to $0.06 a share within two months.

DiIorio initially saw it as a classic “pump-and-dump” scheme, where major investors in a company lure in other investors with overhyped claims, raising the stock price, and then sell their shares, leading to a drop. Pump-and-dumps have proliferated with the rise of internet message boards. “It’s not just promoters calling you on the phone anymore,” said Laura Posner, bureau chief of the New Jersey Bureau of Securities. “People pretend to be other people, pretend to have inside information.”

But to DiIorio, BTVL’s drop didn’t make sense, because prior shareholders were prohibited from trading the stock. “I called the CEO regularly and said: ‘Who’s selling the stock? How is this happening? The stock is not for sale.’ He told me that he was locked up too.” Phone numbers and email addresses listed for CEO Adrian Stone no longer function, so he could not be reached for comment.

By the end, DiIorio took a loss from the peak stock value of well over $1 million. “I never saw such devastation in a stock before,” he said.

GRAPHIC: THE INTERCEPT
In a pump-and-dump scheme, investors buy a stock, hype it to pump up its value, then dump it before it crashes back down.

A Real Head-Scratcher

DiIorio prided himself on being a savvy trader.

And the implosion of Best Rate Travel, given the lock-up period, shouldn’t have occurred. DiIorio wanted to understand what really happened to crush his investment so completely. And he had the background in financial market analysis to see it through.

So DiIorio started learning what firms traded Best Rate Travel. The biggest two by far were the giant Swiss bank UBS and a massive New Jersey-based company named Knight Capital.

He thought these were very big names to be involved in such an obscure penny stock.

Something fishy was going on, but DiIorio had no idea what. “I just thought, what the hell, I’m going to figure this out.”

http://Source: The Money Is Gone: A Look At The Pump-And-Dump In Penny Stocks

Feedweb for WordPress. v3.1.1

Fame And (79 Percent Of The) Fortune: The Celebrity Gender Pay Gap 

JON KOPALOFF VIA GETTY IMAGES
Singer Taylor Swift attends the 64th Annual BMI Pop Awards at the Beverly Wilshire Four Seasons Hotel on May 10, 2016 in Beverly Hills, California

Regardless of your age, geographic location or musical taste, you get a good dose of Taylor Swift. She’s a global icon on radio, TV, social media, magazines and billboards. From the Super Bowl to the World Cup, the Oscars to Oscar de la Renta, Swift grabs the headlines.

Between her 1989 World Tour and endorsement deals with brands like Apple, Diet Coke and Keds, the singer is crushing it in the business world. Forbes recently released its annual list of the 100 highest paid celebrities and unsurprisingly, Swift took the top spot with earnings of a cool $170 million over the past 12 months.

In light of the oft-debated discussion around the gender wage gap in the United States, are Swift’s earnings indicative of a trend toward gender equality? Could that gap be closing? Men seem to think so. According to our weekly SurveyMonkey | NBC News poll, over 50 percent of men — particularly white men — believe society has reached the point where men and women have equal opportunities for achievement. We were curious to see if the data would corroborate this belief.

Of the top 20 earners [on the Forbes 100 list], only five are women. Of the 100 names on the list, female celebrities account for a mere 15 spots.

We analyzed the Forbes 100 list and found Swift emerges as an anomaly. Of the top 20 earners, only five are women. Of the 100 names on the list, female celebrities account for a mere 15 spots. It’s even worse in sports. While athletes appear on the list more than any other profession, it’s also the category that doesn’t have a single female name. Serena Williams’ 2016 victory at Wimbledon makes her the winningest player in major singles, doubles and mixed doubles of any active player, regardless of gender. But it doesn’t get her on the list of top paid athletes…despite the fact Nike recently ran an ad campaign proclaiming her the greatest female athlete of all time! Trophies build legacies but endorsement deals bring in the money. Serena trails names like Gareth Bale (#77), Fernando Alonso (#75) and Sebastian Vettel (#63) — all international athletes who are largely unfamiliar to those of us in the United States.

Celebrities rarely get pity from the general population, but the lack of women on the highest paid list highlights a broader problem in how we pay and value women.

We did an analysis of drivers of celebrity status and developed a comprehensive ranking called SurveyMonkey Measures: Celebrity. This rank measures the qualities, both positive and negative, that contribute to celebrity and gives the top spot to TV personality Ellen DeGeneres, who shoots up from #13 in the Forbes list. In addition to being named the celebrity people would most like to trade lives with for a day and the one who contributes most to society, she took top honors in two categories that would serve anyone well: most respected and most business savvy.

According to our findings, Americans seem to value women more than some of the men on the list — moving Adele and Madonna up along with DeGeneres and Swift as part of their top 10 overall most valued celebrities. Given that only Taylor Swift and Adele cracked the top 10 in Forbes’ list, in terms of overall value, our results double the female representation.

We have a lot of work to do in a society where someone has to work all year to earn what the guy next to her makes by the end of July.

And the top three most overpaid? All were men: Lebron James, Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Phil McGraw.

And when you pull back and look at the data, the stars, are in fact, just like us. The average American woman? She makes 79 cents for every dollar paid to a man, according to The Census Bureau. More distressingly, African-American women earn approximately 59.8 cents for every dollar her white male counterpart earns. We have a lot of work to do in a society where someone has to work all year to earn what the guy next to her makes by the end of July.

The gender pay gap is an issue that affects workers in virtually every industry, including the world’s most visible women. And unfortunately, our data reveals that many people still seem to believe that women getting paid less for the same work as men is a thing of the past. We can say with complete certainty, it’s not. So next time you hear Taylor Swift on the radio, don’t just shake it off. Her success is inspirational but a big societal gap still exists between the genders when it comes to contribution and compensation.

 

 

Source: Fame And (79 Percent Of The) Fortune: The Celebrity Gender Pay Gap

The Scary Impact Skipping Exercise For Only 10 Days Has On Your Brain 

CATHY YEULET VIA GETTY IMAGES

Thinking about skipping the gym today? You might want to rethink that choice. While we all know a workout can feel so much tougher after a fitness hiatus, researchers believe that going without exercise for as little as 10 days can cause changes in your brain.

In a small study published in the Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, researchers from theUniversity of Maryland in College Park set out to see what changes occur in the brain of fit, active older people after they stop exercising.

They recruited 12 exceptionally fit and active adults, between the ages of 50 and 80. The subjects were all competitive runners who regularly ran 35 miles per week or more.

Senior author J. Carson Smith told The New York Times that they purposely sought out “serious endurance athletes because they would be expected to have a very high baseline” fitness level. The effects of stopping exercise for this group, they believed, would be magnified compared with someone with a more moderate fitness level.

They were asked to cease all exercise and adopt a sedentary lifestyle for 10 days. In just this short span of time, researchers observed some “significant” brain changes.

Compared to an MRI scan given at the beginning of the study, the subjects showed decreased blood flow in eight different parts of the brain ― including the hippocampus, the brain’s memory center, and several regions that are commonly affected by Alzheimer’s disease.

“In older people, exercise can help protect the hippocampus from shrinking. So, it is significant that people who stopped exercising for only 10 days showed a decrease in brain blood flow in brain regions that are important for maintaining brain health,” Smith said in a statement. 

On the plus side, they didn’t observe any changes in cognitive abilities after the 10-day study. They did not, however, measure if brain flow recovered to normal levels once the subjects restarted their usual fitness regimens.

Researchers say further studies are needed to understand how quickly exercise cessation causes changes in the brain, whether resuming exercise can reverse the changes and what the longterm outcomes can be.

“But the take home message is simple ― if you do stop exercising for 10 days, just as you will quickly lose your cardiovascular fitness, you will also experience a decrease in blood brain flow,” Smith said.

Time to lace up those running shoes, folks.

 

Source: The Scary Impact Skipping Exercise For Only 10 Days Has On Your Brain