Funding Wars in the Middle East and Terrorism across the World

Posted in Editorial | 2 Comments

Excellent

Posted in Editorial | 6 Comments

No More Secret Service for You

Posted in Editorial | 14 Comments

U.S. Central Command, has placed all U.S. bases in the Middle East on war alert

Posted in Editorial | 19 Comments

Why Bondi Has Not Charged Anyone

Posted in Editorial | 21 Comments

With Representation Like This, Why Even Have a Government?

Posted in Editorial | 8 Comments

Trump Announces the Release of the JFK Files

Posted in Editorial | 11 Comments

LabCorp and Grok

One disturbing thing about retirement is the cost of healthcare. I pay more for health insurance than before I went on Medicare. I also pay more for doctor visits and tests as I suspect the bills are just padded for government reimbursement.

I was getting my blood work at the doctor’s office and noticed that the cost went up so I went back to the county clinic where the cost is less than half the price for the same laboratory and labwork. In the past, the results were sent to me and the doctor. Now the results are sent to the doctor. I asked and was told that I had to bring a self-addressed, stamped envelope. I then asked about the small sign in the lobby and was told that Labcorp has an online service. I asked about that and was given a pamphlet.

When I made my account at Labcorp, the results came up and I could download the report in a PDF. The report had both the current results and the results from my last test. I uploaded the PDF to Grok and asked for an analysis.

The analysis was thorough and better than what the doctor changes me. Here is a portion:

Key Observations by Category

1. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)

  • Current Result: 6.8% (Flag: High)
  • Previous Result: 11.8% (10/22/2024)
  • Reference Interval: 4.8–5.6%

Notes:

  • Prediabetes: 5.7–6.4%, Diabetes: >6.4%, Glycemic control goal for diabetics: <7.0%.
  • The current HbA1c of 6.8% indicates diabetes. It’s just above the glycemic control target of <7.0% for adults with diabetes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I asked Grok the following question since I had researched A1C levels a few years back:

What is a good A1C for a 68 year old male for a lower risk of heart attack?

From Grok:

For a 68-year-old male, the “ideal” Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level to lower the risk of heart attack depends on individual health factors, but general guidelines from medical organizations can provide a framework. HbA1c reflects average blood sugar levels over the past 2-3 months and is closely linked to cardiovascular risk, especially in older adults where diabetes and heart disease often intersect. Here’s an analysis based on current medical understanding:

General Guidelines

  • Non-Diabetic Range: An HbA1c of 4.8–5.6% is considered normal for people without diabetes. For a 68-year-old male without diabetes, staying within or near this range minimizes cardiovascular risk associated with elevated blood sugar.
  • Prediabetes Range: 5.7–6.4%. This indicates a higher risk of developing diabetes and a modest increase in cardiovascular risk, though not as pronounced as with diabetes.
  • Diabetes Control: For adults with diabetes, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends a target of <7.0% for most individuals to reduce complications, including cardiovascular events. However, this target can be adjusted based on age and health status.

Age-Specific Considerations

  • For older adults (e.g., 68 years old), guidelines like those from the ADA and the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) suggest a slightly more lenient HbA1c target to balance benefits and risks (e.g., hypoglycemia). A common recommendation for healthy older adults with diabetes is 7.0–7.5%, especially if they have few comorbidities and a life expectancy exceeding 10 years.
  • If there are significant health issues (e.g., heart disease, kidney problems, or frailty), a target of 7.5–8.0% might be safer to avoid hypoglycemia, which can strain the heart.

HbA1c and Heart Attack Risk

  • Lower HbA1c and Cardiovascular Benefit: Studies show that HbA1c levels below 7.0% are associated with reduced risk of microvascular complications (e.g., eye, kidney damage) and may lower macrovascular risks (e.g., heart attack, stroke) in the long term. For example, the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found that each 1% reduction in HbA1c reduced heart attack risk by about 14% in younger diabetic patients.
  • Older Adults: In older populations, the relationship is less straightforward. A 2019 study in JAMA Network Open suggested a U-shaped curve for mortality and cardiovascular events in seniors—levels below 6.5% or above 8.0% were linked to higher risks. For a 68-year-old, an HbA1c around 6.5–7.0% might optimize heart attack risk reduction while avoiding hypoglycemia.
  • Your Lab Report Context: Your HbA1c is 6.8%, which is just below the 7.0% threshold. Combined with elevated lipids (e.g., LDL 154 mg/dL), keeping HbA1c at or below 6.8% could help lower heart attack risk.

What’s “Good” for a 68-Year-Old Male?

  • Optimal for Lower Heart Attack Risk: 6.5–7.0%. This range aligns with good glycemic control, reduces cardiovascular strain from high blood sugar, and is practical for a healthy 68-year-old without excessive hypoglycemia risk.
  • Individualized Target: If you have existing heart disease, a slightly higher target (e.g., 7.0–7.5%) might be safer, as aggressive lowering below 6.5% hasn’t consistently shown added heart attack prevention in older adults and could increase hypoglycemia-related stress on the heart.

Conclusion

For a 68-year-old male aiming to lower heart attack risk, an HbA1c of 6.5–7.0% is a solid target if you’re relatively healthy, as it balances glycemic control with safety. Your current 6.8% is close to this, suggesting you’re on the right track, but maintaining or slightly lowering it could optimize heart health. Discuss this with your doctor to tailor it to your specific health profile—age, diabetes duration, and heart risk factors matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My point is that we can save money for the same test from the same laboratory, download the information and get a free, thorough analysis. As shown here, Grok missed the appropriate level for A1C for my age but that was expected based on my previous experience at the doctor’s office.

Posted in Editorial | 16 Comments

AI Chip Production

Posted in Editorial | 6 Comments

I Want One

Posted in Editorial | 6 Comments

Not the Way Civil Service Was Supposed to Be

Posted in Editorial | 4 Comments

Autopen Pardons

Posted in Editorial | 13 Comments

Col. Doug Macgregor: Mexican Cartels’ Advanced Weaponry, and Why They’re a Bigger Threat Than Russia

Posted in Editorial | 10 Comments

An Autopen Signature Should Not Be Valid

This is easy. Someone was signing legislation, pardons and executive orders with an autopen since Joe Biden was mentally incompetent. The DOJ needs to file a suit reversing anything signed by the faux Biden.

From Grok:

If legislation, pardons, or executive orders signed by an autopen instead of Joe Biden were declared null and void, the consequences would depend on legal, political, and practical factors. Here’s a breakdown of what could happen:

Legal Consequences

  1. Invalidation of Actions: If a court ruled that autopen signatures lack the president’s direct intent or awareness—key for constitutional acts like signing bills, issuing pardons, or enacting executive orders—those actions could be deemed unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 7) requires the president to sign bills into law, implying personal involvement. An autopen, if unauthorized or used without Biden’s knowledge, might not meet this standard, voiding affected laws.
    • For example, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act or the $40 billion Ukraine aid package, if signed by autopen without clear authorization, could be challenged.
  2. Pardons Reversed: Biden’s pardons—like those for Hunter Biden, Anthony Fauci, or Mark Milley on January 19, 2025—could be nullified. This might reopen legal cases against recipients, though proving autopen use alone wouldn’t automatically undo them; courts would need evidence Biden didn’t authorize it. Precedents like Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon (pre-autopen era) show pardons are rarely overturned, but this could set a new legal test.
  3. Executive Orders Undone: Orders like the pause on liquefied natural gas exports or immigration policies could be struck down. Agencies would lose authority to enforce them, potentially halting regulations midstream.

Political Consequences

  1. Chaos in Governance: Voiding major legislation or orders from 2021–2025 could paralyze parts of the federal government. Agencies relying on those laws—like the EPA or DHS—might face immediate legal uncertainty, disrupting everything from environmental rules to border security.
  2. Partisan Firestorm: Republicans could exploit this to delegitimize Biden’s presidency, pushing to unravel his legacy. Democrats might counter that autopen use is routine (e.g., Obama signed a 2011 bill with it), accusing opponents of political overreach. Missouri AG Andrew Bailey’s call for a DOJ probe into Biden’s cognitive decline reflects this tension already brewing by March 2025.
  3. Congressional Backlash: Congress might rush to re-pass voided laws under Trump, though with a potentially different political makeup post-2024, outcomes could shift. Alternatively, gridlock could stall fixes.

Practical Consequences

  1. Economic Disruption: If funding bills (e.g., the 2022 omnibus) were voided, billions in allocated funds—say, for infrastructure or Ukraine—could be frozen, spiking uncertainty in markets and international relations. LNG export pauses being reversed might boost energy markets but anger environmentalists.
  2. Legal Limbo: Courts would face a flood of challenges. For instance, if Hunter Biden’s pardon was nullified, prosecutors could revive cases, but statutes of limitations or double jeopardy might complicate retries. The Supreme Court might ultimately decide, possibly years later.
  3. Precedent for Future: A ruling against autopen signatures could ban their use, forcing presidents to sign everything by hand—a logistical nightmare given modern government’s pace. Alternatively, Congress might clarify autopen legality to prevent future crises.

Caveats

  • Historical Use: Autopens aren’t new—Thomas Jefferson used a precursor, and Obama set the modern precedent for legislation. Courts might uphold them if Biden authorized their use, as no law explicitly bans it.
  • Burden of Proof: Challengers would need to prove Biden didn’t know or approve, which is tough without internal White House records. The Oversight Project’s March 2025 claims about widespread autopen use lack definitive evidence tying it to unawareness.
  • Timing: As of March 16, 2025, no court has ruled on this. Speculation about nullification stems from groups like Heritage’s Oversight Project and figures like Bailey, but it’s not yet law.

Likely Outcome

Mass nullification is improbable without ironclad evidence of fraud or incapacity—think 25th Amendment-level proof, not just autopen use. Courts lean toward preserving stability; they’d likely uphold actions if Biden’s intent was documented. Short-term chaos might hit specific pardons or orders, but wholesale reversal of four years’ work would be a legal and political earthquake, restrained by practical limits. Still, even a partial ruling could reshape trust in executive power for decades.

Posted in Editorial | 10 Comments

Boots on the ground and news you should know…MAJOR inflation just hit me hard on this item I need.

Posted in Editorial | Comments Off on Boots on the ground and news you should know…MAJOR inflation just hit me hard on this item I need.