Latest news with #TikTok
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Health
- Hindustan Times
US neurologist advises Americans to avoid these 3 common foods to keep their brain sharp and healthy
Mental fitness is as important as physical fitness! When it comes to protecting brain health, most people think of eating leafy greens and omega-3-rich fish. But some foods may do more harm than good, especially when they harbour dangerous neurotoxins or brain parasites. Neurologist lists foods to avoid for better mental fitness. Dr Baibing Chen, a neurologist and professor at the University of Michigan, has witnessed terrifying effects of these foodborne threats in his career. In a video on TikTok, he has listed three specific foods he personally avoids no matter how appetising they may seem, according to New York Post. (Also read: Is it just a headache? Neurologist shares 6 warning signs you shouldn't ignore ) Tropical reef fish Dr Chen, in the video, said that he relishes fish but avoids consuming large tropical reef species like barracuda, grouper, or amberjack. He explains these fishes can contain ciguatoxin, a potent neurotoxin which accumulates in predatory reef fish. He warned that ciguatoxin is heat-stable and no matter how well the fish is cooked, it will not be destroyed. Ciguatoxin poisoning symptoms include tingling, dizziness, hallucinations, reversed temperature sensation and it could even cause chronic nerve damage. It is frequently misdiagnosed, and cases are on the rise in tropical regions. The health expert has advised sticking to safer fish varieties and avoiding the liver or roe of large reef fish. Damaged tin cans Dr Chen said he avoids consuming food from tins that have dents and urged people to throw out any tin cans that are bulging, cracked, or badly dented. This is because such products could be contaminated with botulinum toxin, he added. Also Read: NHS doctor shares '5 everyday habits that are ageing your brain': Doom scrolling to skipping meals, especially breakfast The toxin, produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, is one of the most lethal neurotoxins which can cause paralysis and even death. Dr Chen explained that botulinum toxin is odorless and tasteless, while heating the food nay not necessarily destroy it. 'When in doubt, throw it out,' he noted. Undercooked pork Dr Chen added that eating undercooked pork, especially from unregulated sources, carries the risk of neurocysticercosis, a parasitic infection caused by tapeworm eggs which can lodge in the brain. He highlighted that neurocysticercosis is one of the leading causes of acquired epilepsy worldwide, stressing that fully cooking pork to a safe internal temperature is essential, especially for those with weakened immune systems. What else does Dr Baibing Chen promote for brain health? In an interview with CNBC, he shared four habits he practices to better brain health and memory. He cautioned against over-relying on GPS since it can weaken spatial memory. Secondly, he warned against excessive energy drink consumption which could lead to cardiovascular issues and neurological problems like insomnia and anxiety. Also Read: Neurosurgeon explains how 'brain health is pretty easy to achieve', reveals foods to eat: Dark chocolate, fish, broccoli Additionally, he talked about the risks of overusing over-the-counter medications, saying that excessive use of OTC medicines like Pepto-Bismol can lead to dementia-like symptoms and that high zinc intake could cause spinal cord injuries. FAQs What is ciguatoxin, and why is it dangerous? Ciguatoxin is a neurotoxin found in some tropical reef fish. It causes neurological symptoms like tingling, hallucinations, and reversed hot/cold sensations, while cooking the fish doesn't eliminate it. How can I tell if a tin can is dangerous? Avoid any cans that are bulging, cracked, or severely dented, as they could contain botulinum toxin, which is deadly and undetectable by taste or smell. What is neurocysticercosis? It's a brain infection caused by ingesting tapeworm eggs, usually from undercooked pork. It can lead to seizures and is a major cause of epilepsy worldwide. Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition.
BreakingNews.ie
18 minutes ago
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
TikTok given permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China
Social media giant TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to mount a legal challenge against what it argues is the "penal" €530 million fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. Advertisement In addition to the €530 million fine, the April 30th censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court on Monday, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Advertisement Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30th, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted that the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made their decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says that the Ireland and UK arms are "joint controllers" for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but add that TikTok UK is "the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision". Advertisement Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits that the imposition of "administrative" fines of €485 million and €45 million 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. Advertisement TikTok claims that the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. Ireland Mother (54) should never have been convicted of se... Read More TikTok submits that the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim that the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution". 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property," TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
Economist
26 minutes ago
- Politics
- Economist
Japan's politics is entering a messy new era
Asia | Reign of confusion Illustration: Klawe Rzeczy Jul 14th 2025 | Tokyo | 6 min read T HE DEBUT on TikTok by the Liberal Democratic Party ( LDP ), Japan's long-time ruling party, lacked what young people might call 'rizz'. Released last month, the 44-second video features Ishiba Shigeru, the 68-year-old prime minister, in a dark suit promising to lower petrol prices, while glancing down at paper notes. Prepare to be astounded: it was not a success. His vision for the country remains thankfully unrealised The country's elites won't like it The generals would be mad to try The trial, with a plot stranger than detective fiction, has gripped the country We're looking for a fluent speaker of Korean and English
Irish Times
31 minutes ago
- Business
- Irish Times
TikTok given High Court permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China
The High Court has granted social media giant TikTok permission to pursue a legal challenge against what it argues is the 'penal' €530 million fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530 million fine, the April 30th censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. On Monday, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. READ MORE The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30th, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court on Tuesday on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted that the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made their decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says that the Ireland and UK arms are 'joint controllers' for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but add that TikTok UK is 'the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision'. Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits that the imposition of 'administrative' fines of €485 million and €45 million 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims that the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits that the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim that the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution'. 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property,' TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
Irish Examiner
36 minutes ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
TikTok given High Court permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China
Social media giant TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to mount a legal challenge against what it argues is the "penal" €530m fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530m fine, the April 30 censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court on Monday, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made its decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says the Ireland and UK arms are "joint controllers" for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but adds TikTok UK is "the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision". Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits the imposition of "administrative" fines of €485m and €45m 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution". 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property," TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
