c'est l'amour

Michael Haneke, right, with (from left) Jean-Louis Trintignant, Adrien Brody and Emmanuelle Riva after Amour won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters

The 65th Cannes film festival drew to a close with the director Michael Haneke being awarded the Palme d'Or for Amour.

His victory was greeted with acclaim but an understandable lack of surprise: Amour had been hotly tipped ever since it unspooled on the fifth day of the festival.

The jury, presided over by former Palme d'Or winner Nanni Moretti, gave the chief award to Haneke, saying the jury was not unanimous on any of the awards, but that many of the contending films were "more in love with their style than their characters"; this, presumably, was where Haneke differed.

Amour, which stars French veterans Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva as well as Isabelle Huppert, describes the relationship between an elderly married couple when one of them is incapacitated by a stroke.

The Palme d'Or is Haneke's second; his last was only three years ago for The White Ribbon. In this he joins a select company, including Emir Kusturica and the Dardenne brothers.

The Austrian director accepted the award in his characteristically low-key way, saying: "It's a harsh thing to have to contend with. It's something I had to contend with in my own family, and that's why I started to make this film."

Haneke also mentioned his own wife: "This film is an illustration of the promise we made to each other, if either one of us finds ourselves in the situation that is described in the film."

The Grand Jury prize, Cannes' second most prestigious award, was given to Matteo Garrone, the Italian director whose film Reality explored the effect of reality TV. Garrone's award was genuinely unexpected, perhaps reflecting the common cultural ground between him and the jury president.

British cinema scored a pleasant surprise as the bronze-medal Jury Prize went to Ken Loach's The Angels' Share, a whisky heist comedy set in Scotland. Loach, who is held in high esteem on the European festival circuit, took the opportunity to affirm his opposition to Europe-wide austerity economic policies when accepting his award; he elaborated on the issue afterwards in the winners' press conference.

"The characters in the film have no work, and the world tells them they have no worth," Loach said. "We are reminded of the situation in Europe where people are told they have to stay out of work, and stay of no value. So we are in solidarity with those against austerity – another world is possible."

A rare moment of levity was provided by Mexican director Carlos Reygadas, whose best director award was probably the biggest surprise of the night, after a string of negative reviews for his film Post Tenebras Lux. Reygadas bounced into the winners' press conference, punching the air, and stood balancing his award certificate on his head. British jury member Andrea Arnold had earlier defended his film to the hilt, saying it had "dared to fail".

Probably the most disappointed director on the night was Leos Carax, whose Holy Motors looked likely to scoop at least one award. Moretti said: "Opinions were divided within the jury over several films; some won awards, some did not."

But one popular winner was the young American, Benh Zeitlin, whose surreal coming of age film Beasts of the Southern Wild won the Camera d'Or for best first film. Zeitlin, the only American to win a major prize, explained that nearly all his cast and crew were first-timers too: "We were a lot of inexperienced people running fast into the unknown."

Former Bond villain Mads Mikkelsen also drew loud cheers when his best actor award was announced for the child-abuse-accusation drama The Hunt. Jury member Ewan McGregor said: "The wonder was in the subtlety."

@Guardian

Long after complicated pregnancy, maternal cardiac problems develop

Many years after preeclampsia, women have an increased risk for cardiac dysfunction, Austrian researchers report in BJOG online 

The same is true for women who have the so-called HELLP syndrome during pregnancy (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets).

"Our study shows that even asymptomatic women many years after (preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome) have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease," lead author Dr. Isolde Strobl told Reuters Health by e-mail.

Dr. Strobl and colleagues at Innsbruck Medical University say epidemiologists had suggested this might be the case. To find more evidence, they studied 48 "apparently healthy, asymptomatic women" who were an average of 43 years old, some 13 to 18 years after an index pregnancy. Fourteen women had been preeclamptic, 17 had HELLP syndrome, and 17 had normal pregnancies.

Echocardiography showed that the myocardial performance index (MPI), used to evaluate systolic and diastolic left ventricular function, was significantly elevated in the preeclampsia group (0.36) and the HELLP group (0.34) compared to controls (0.24).

It is not known "whether this elevated risk is a reflection of a common etiology of these diseases, or whether cardiovascular disease in these women is caused by HELLP syndrome or preeclampsia," the researchers write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Strobl said, "Prophylactic measures like lifestyle changes might be essential for these women in order to prevent adverse outcome later in life."

By David Douglas

WikiLeaks : 5 Basic Questions

The WikiLeaks controversy pits one hallowed purpose of US government – preventing security threats from abroad – against another, that of protecting constitutional rights of expression by the media and individuals. Striking that balance has become difficult in an age of the Internet hackers, bloggers, self-appointed public policy watchdogs, and thousands of online “publications” marked by ideology and attitude.

So far, WikiLeaks has released more than 700,000 sensitive or classified documents about US military and diplomatic activity – 92,000 on the war in Afghanistan, 392,000 on the Iraq war, and now nearly 250,000 diplomatic cables that US officials say are damaging to foreign relations and intelligence operations. Within weeks, WikiLeaks says, it’ll release inside information on business interests – starting with a major American bank.
Here are answers to five key questions by Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer  ThFire.com

1. Who is responsible for the leaks?
WikiLeaks describes itself as a “not-for-profit media organization” whose goal is to “bring important news and information to the public.” Launched in 2006, it is a loose network of individual leakers and advisers with a post office box at the University of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia. A shadowy, mostly volunteer organization, WikiLeaks operates on many servers and under domain names around the world. Much of its work is conducted from a rented house in Iceland.
Australian Julian Paul Assange is WikiLeaks' editor in chief and only spokesman. He is in his late 30s, studied physics, math, and computer programming, all of which made him an expert computer hacker. Mr. Assange seems to travel constantly, although not to the United States, sometimes altering his appearance to avoid being recognized or possibly arrested.
The other prominent name connected to WikiLeaks is US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. Manning was a military analyst in Iraq, where, despite his low rank, he had wide access to sensitive and classified information. Among other things, he allegedly downloaded and leaked video footage of an attack by a US Apache helicopter gunship that killed Iraqi civilians, including two employees of the Reuters news agency.
Manning was arrested in May and later charged with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in conjunction with “transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system,” as well as “communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source.



2. How could so much classified information be stolen?
During the months Manning worked with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division in Iraq, it was apparently easy for him to find, download, and copy sensitive military information. Writing in an online chat, he claims to have had “unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months.”
“I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga’ … erase the music … then write a compressed split file,” he wrote. “No one suspected a thing … I listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history.”
“Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counterintelligence, inattentive signal analysis,” Manning wrote. “A perfect storm.”
“No one suspected a thing,” he wrote to a former computer hacker who eventually tipped off the FBI and Army officials. “I didn’t even have to hide anything.”
Officials have told the Associated Press that Manning is the prime suspect in the most recent leak of diplomatic cables. He is now awaiting court martial at the US Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. He faces up to 52 years in prison.


3. How did the information become public?
WikiLeaks provided the latest cache of 251,287 diplomatic cables to Der Spiegel, El País, Le Monde, and The Guardian newspapers. The New York Times, which had published earlier reports critical of Assange and Manning, was snubbed by WikiLeaks for this round of leaked documents. But the Guardian quickly passed along the leaked material to the Times.
In justifying the decision to publish reports on the leaked cables, New York Times editor Bill Keller offered this explanation:
“We have edited out any information that could identify confidential sources – including informants, dissidents, academics and human rights activists – or otherwise compromise national security,” he wrote in response to questions on the Times website. “We did this in consultation with the State Department, and while they strongly disapprove of the publication of classified material at any time, and while we did not agree with all of their requests for omission, we took their views very seriously indeed.” He also noted that the Times chose "a small selection of the cables – about 100 in all, out of a quarter of a million documents – that we think provide useful source material for the articles we have written.”


4. What information got released?
In July, WikiLeaks released some 92,000 documents on the war in Afghanistan, including information on civilian casualties, the strength of the Taliban, friendly fire episodes, and links between Pakistan’s intelligence services and the Taliban.
Three months later, WikiLeaks disclosed nearly 392,000 US Army field reports – the largest military leak in US history – dubbed the “Iraq War Logs.” Among other things, the information included details of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, secret civilian death counts, Iran’s involvement with Shiite militias operating in Iraq, tensions between Kurds and Arabs in northern Iraq, and new information about three American hikers arrested along the Iraq-Iran border and taken to Iran.
Of the 250,000 confidential and secret diplomatic cables released Nov. 28, 15,652 are classified as “secret.” Of those, 4,330 also are labeled “NOFORN,” meaning they should not be seen by foreign nationals. The frankly worded cables revealed US spying on United Nations officials, included disparaging remarks about national leaders such as Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and recounted Saudi Arabia’s urging the US to attack Iran over that nation’s nuclear program.


5. Could this kind of leak happen again?
Unless the US changes how it distributes and tracks sensitive information, the short answer is “yes.”
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, agencies began sharing information that previously had been “stove-piped.” At the same time, the number of individuals with access to classified information via the secure Secret Internet Protocol Router Network grew to nearly 2.5 million people (most of them at the Defense Department). Manning was one such person
“Obviously that aperture went too wide,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pentagon reporters recently. The Pentagon is now tightening controls on classified information. For example, classified computers will be “read-only,” preventing the use of thumb drives and other removable media to copy and walk away with sensitive data.
The State Department and other agencies, too, are tightening information-sharing. Moreover, the White House has directed government entities that handle classified information to review their "implementation of procedures for safeguarding classified information against improper disclosures.”

IVUS assessing Statins?

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) may be useful for assessing the effects of statins on regression and progression of coronary artery plaque, researchers from Japan report.
The findings don't mean patients should all be monitored in this way; it's obviously invasive, and most insurance companies consider this indication to be investigational.

But as lead author Dr. Hideaki Kaneda from Okinaka Memorial Institute for Medical Research and Tokyo Heart Center, Tokyo, told Reuters Health by e-mail, "current resolution of CT/MRI is not enough to determine plaque volume accurately (and) although optical coherence tomography has higher resolution, its penetration depth is not enough to determine vessel size/plaque volume."

Dr. Kaneda and colleagues reviewed 26 studies (with a total of 5,794 patients) of IVUS in patients taking statins (11 studies), antihypertensive drugs (3 studies), antidiabetic drugs (3), drugs modifying HDL (3), lipid-lowering drugs other than statins (2), antioxidants (2), antiobesity drugs (1), and other drugs (1).
They focused on three commonly used IVUS variables: (1) absolute or nominal change in plaque or atheroma volume, (2) percentage change in plaque or atheroma volume, and (3) absolute or nominal change in percentage plaque or atheroma volume.
There were significant differences between statin-treated and control groups in only eight of 20 studies reporting nominal changes in plaque volume, four of 11 studies reporting percentage change in plaque volume, and three of 10 studies reporting nominal changes in percent plaque volume, according to their October 26 online report in the American Journal of Cardiology.
Fewer than half of the examined variables showed statistically significant differences in comparing groups, and results were more often significant when shorter segments (<10 mm) were analyzed.

"Current methods of calculating plaque volume using IVUS have several limitations," Dr. Kaneda told Reuters Health by e-mail. "In addition, it remains unknown whether IVUS variables (change of plaque volume) are valid surrogate markers that examine the effects of drugs other than statin."

"Less invasive imaging modalities with high resolution are needed," Dr. Kaneda concluded.

By Will Boggs, MD
Source: http://link.reuters
Article Published in :Am J Cardiology