What The Industry Knew About Sugar's Health Effects, But Didn't Tell Us

 Enlarge this image toggle caption Karen M. Romanko/Getty Images Karen M. Romanko/Getty Images

 Back in the 1960s, the fact that our diets influence the risk of heart disease was still a new idea. And there was a debate about the role of fats and the role of sugar.

 The sugar industry got involved in efforts to influence this debate. "What the sugar industry successively did," argues Stanton Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco, "is they shifted all of the blame onto fats."

 The industry's strategies were sophisticated, Glantz says, and are similar to those of the tobacco industry. For instance, in 1965 an industry group, the Sugar Research Foundation, secretly funded a scientific review that downplayed the evidence that linked sugar consumption to blood fat levels. The review was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

 Now, what's come to light in an investigation published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Biology is that the industry funded its own research project, but never disclosed the findings.

 Glantz and his collaborators, including Cristin Kearns, an assistant professor at UCSF, evaluated a bunch of sugar industry internal documents. Here's what they found:

 Back in 1968, the Sugar Research Foundation, a predecessor to the International Sugar Research Foundation, paid a researcher to lead a study with lab animals.

 Initial results showed that a high-sugar diet increased the animals' triglyceride levels, a type of fat in the blood, through effects on the gut bacteria. In people, high triglycerides can increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. The study also found that animals fed sugar had higher levels of an enzyme associated with bladder cancer in their urine.

 The study was halted before it was completed. Glantz says the researcher asked for more time to continue the study, but the Sugar Research Foundation pulled the plug on the project.

 The Sugar Association, a trade group based in Washington, D.C., that has organizational ties to the Sugar Research Foundation, released a statement on this new investigation.

 "The study in question ended for three reasons, none of which involved potential research findings," the association says. The statement goes on to explain that the study was over budget and delayed. "The delay overlapped with an organizational restructuring with the Sugar Research Foundation becoming a new entity, the International Sugar Research Foundation," the statement says.

 The trade group says sugar consumed in moderation is part of a balanced lifestyle, and in its statement the group says "we remain committed to supporting research to further understand the role sugar plays in consumers' evolving eating habits."

 But critics argue that the industry is still trying to slow down the consensus on the health risks linked to sugar consumption. In the PLOS Biology paper, Glantz and his co-authors argue that the ongoing controversy surrounding sugar in our diets "may be rooted in more than 60 years of food and beverage industry manipulation of science."

 In recent years, new evidence has emerged that links sugary diets to heart disease. But could we have gotten the message sooner?

 UCSF's Kearns argues that if the sugar industry had published its findings decades ago, it would have added to a growing body of evidence. "Had this information been made public, there would have been a lot more research scrutiny of sugar," Kearns told us.

 Kearns says the sugar industry has "a lot of money and influence" and still uses its influence to cast doubt on the recommendation to limit added sugars to no more than 10 percent of daily calories.

 In a trade association publication last year, the president and CEO of the Sugar Association described this recommended limit on sugar, which is part of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as "scientifically out of bounds." ||||| Researchers say negative health impacts of sucrose could have been combated sooner had research been released – but industry bodies dispute the findings

 Sugar’s demise from childhood staple to public enemy can be seen everywhere. Chocolate bars are shrinking, sugary drinks are set to be taxed and our recommended daily sugar intake has been slashed in half. But the battle against sugar might have begun sooner if the industry hadn’t kept secrets to protect its commercial interests, according to new findings.

 In 1967, when scientists were arguing over the link between sugar consumption and increased risk of heart disease, researchers now claim that the International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF) withheld findings that rats that were fed a high-sugar diet had higher levels of triglycerides (a fat found in the blood) than those fed starch. In a move researchers from the University of California at San Francisco have compared to the tobacco industry’s self-preservation tactics, the foundation stopped funding the project.

 Sugar lobby paid scientists to blur sugar's role in heart disease – report Read more

 Cristin Kearns, one of the researchers who analysed ISRF documents, says, “ISRF’s research was designed to cast doubt on the importance of elevated triglycerides in the blood as a heart disease risk factor. It is now commonly accepted that triglycerides are a risk factor, but this was controversial for decades. I think the scientific community would have come to consensus about elevated triglycerides being a risk factor for heart disease much sooner [if the research been published].”

 A year later the foundation funded Project 259, looking into the effects of sucrose consumption in the intestinal tracts of rats. It found a possible link between sugar consumption and increased risk of bladder cancer, and described the findings as “one of the first demonstrations of a biological difference between sucrose and starch fed rats”. But the ISRF terminated the project’s funding before the experiments were finished, despite the study having already lasted 27 months, and requiring only three more months.

 The study, the researchers argue in their new paper, published in the journal Plos Biology, could possibly have had implications for humans, and indicates how ISRF downplayed sugar’s role in cardiovascular disease due to commercial interests.

 Kearns says, “ISRF’s primary purpose was, and still is as the Sugar Association and the World Sugar Research Organisation, to sell more sucrose. Our previous paper and this one demonstrate that ISRF’s research program was designed to support its business interests at the expense of the public.”

 The sugar conspiracy | Ian Leslie Read more

 The problem could be much bigger than the two ISRF studies the researchers have scrutinised. The researchers conclude that the debates we now have on sugar’s effects on our health are potentially rooted in six decades of the sugar industry’s manipulation of scientific evidence.

 “ISRF sponsored more than 300 research projects between 1943 and 1972, and its successor organisations continue to fund research,” Keanrs says. “I think it’s safe to say the problem is more widespread than what’s outlined in the paper.”

 In response to the paper, the ISFR’s successor, the Sugar Association, said in a statement:

 “The article we are discussing is not actually a study, but a perspective: a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organisations that are known critics of the sugar industry.

 “We reviewed our research archives and found documentation that the study in question ended for three reasons, none of which involved potential research findings: the study was significantly delayed; it was consequently over budget; and the delay overlapped with an organisational restructuring … There were plans to continue the study with funding from the British Nutrition Foundation, but, for reasons unbeknown to us, this did not occur.” ||||| A U.S. sugar industry trade group appears to have pulled the plug on a study that was producing animal evidence linking sucrose to disease nearly 50 years ago, researchers argue in a paper publishing on November 21 in the open access journal PLOS Biology.

 Researchers Cristin Kearns, Dorie Apollonio and Stanton Glantz from the University of California at San Francisco reviewed internal sugar industry documents and discovered that the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) funded animal research to evaluate sucrose's effects on cardiovascular health. When the evidence seemed to indicate that sucrose might be associated with heart disease and bladder cancer, they found, the foundation terminated the project without publishing the results.

 In a previous analysis of the documents, Kearns and Glantz found that SRF had secretly funded a 1967 review article that downplayed evidence linking sucrose consumption to coronary heart disease. That SRF-funded review noted that gut microbes may explain why rats fed sugar had higher cholesterol levels than those fed starch, but dismissed the relevance of animal studies to understanding human disease.

 In the new paper in PLOS Biology, the team reports that the following year, SRF (which had changed its name in 1968 to the International Sugar Research Foundation, or ISRF) launched a rat study called Project 259 'to measure the nutritional effects of the [bacterial] organisms in the intestinal tract' when sucrose was consumed, compared to starch.

 The ISRF-funded research on rats by W.R.F. Pover of the University of Birmingham suggested that gut bacteria help mediate sugar's adverse cardiovascular effects. Pover also reported findings that might indicate an increased risk of bladder cancer. "This incidental finding of Project 259 demonstrated to ISRF that sucrose vs. starch consumption caused different metabolic effects," Kearns and her colleagues argue, "and suggested that sucrose, by stimulating urinary beta-glucuronidase, may have a role in the pathogenesis of bladder cancer."

 The ISRF described the finding in a September 1969 internal document as "one of the first demonstrations of a biological difference between sucrose and starch fed rats." But soon after ISRF learned about these results--and shortly before the research project was complete--the group terminated funding for the project, and no findings from the work were published.

 In the 1960s, scientists disagreed over whether sugar could elevate triglycerides relative to starch, and Project 259 would have bolstered the case that it could, the authors argue. What's more, terminating Project 259 echoed SRF's earlier efforts to downplay sugar's role in cardiovascular disease.

 The results suggest that the current debate on the relative effects of sugar vs. starch may be rooted in more than 60 years of industry manipulation of science. Last year, the Sugar Association criticized a mouse study suggesting a link between sugar and increased tumor growth and metastasis, saying that "no credible link between ingested sugars and cancer has been established."

 The analysis by Kearns and her colleagues of the industry's own documents, in contrast, suggests that the industry knew of animal research suggesting this link and halted funding to protect its commercial interests half a century ago.

 "The kind of manipulation of research is similar what the tobacco industry does," according to co-author Stanton Glantz. "This kind of behavior calls into question sugar industry-funded studies as a reliable source of information for public policy making."

 "Our study contributes to a wider body of literature documenting industry manipulation of science," the researchers write in the PLOS Biology paper. "Based on ISRF's interpretation of preliminary results, extending Project 259's funding would have been unfavorable to the sugar industry's commercial interests." SRF cut off funding before that could happen.

 ###

 In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the freely available article in PLOS Biology: http://journals. plos. org/ plosbiology/ article?id= 10. 1371/ journal. pbio. 2003460

 Citation: Kearns CE, Apollonio D, Glantz SA (2017) Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: An historical analysis of internal documents. PLoS Biol 15(11): e2003460. https:/ / doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journal. pbio. 2003460

 Funding: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation http://www. arnoldfoundation. org/ (CEK,SAG). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (grant number DE-007306). (CEK). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Samuel Lawrence Foundation https:/ / www. samuellawrencefoundation. org/ . (Provided funding for document acquisition). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. National Cancer Institute (grant number CA-140236). (DA). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. (CEK). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. UCSF School of Dentistry Department of Orofacial Sciences and Global Oral Health Program. (CEK). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Gary Taubes, MS, co-founder of Nutrition Science Initiative http://nusi. org/ . (Provided funding for CEK to travel to the Harvard Medical Library). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. National Cancer Institute (grant number CA-087472). (SAG). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

 Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. ||||| In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) secretly funded a review in the New England Journal of Medicine that discounted evidence linking sucrose consumption to blood lipid levels and hence coronary heart disease (CHD). SRF subsequently funded animal research to evaluate sucrose’s CHD risks. The objective of this study was to examine the planning, funding, and internal evaluation of an SRF-funded research project titled “Project 259: Dietary Carbohydrate and Blood Lipids in Germ-Free Rats,” led by Dr. W.F.R. Pover at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, between 1967 and 1971. A narrative case study method was used to assess SRF Project 259 from 1967 to 1971 based on sugar industry internal documents. Project 259 found a statistically significant decrease in serum triglycerides in germ-free rats fed a high sugar diet compared to conventional rats fed a basic PRM diet (a pelleted diet containing cereal meals, soybean meals, whitefish meal, and dried yeast, fortified with a balanced vitamin supplement and trace element mixture). The results suggested to SRF that gut microbiota have a causal role in carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia. A study comparing conventional rats fed a high-sugar diet to those fed a high-starch diet suggested that sucrose consumption might be associated with elevated levels of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme previously associated with bladder cancer in humans. SRF terminated Project 259 without publishing the results. The sugar industry did not disclose evidence of harm from animal studies that would have (1) strengthened the case that the CHD risk of sucrose is greater than starch and (2) caused sucrose to be scrutinized as a potential carcinogen. The influence of the gut microbiota in the differential effects of sucrose and starch on blood lipids, as well as the influence of carbohydrate quality on beta-glucuronidase and cancer activity, deserve further scrutiny.

 Funding: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/ . (CEK, SAG). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (grant number DE-007306). (CEK). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Samuel Lawrence Foundation https://www.samuellawrencefoundation.org/ . (Provided funding for document acquisition). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. National Cancer Institute (grant number CA-140236). (DA). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. (CEK). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. UCSF School of Dentistry Department of Orofacial Sciences and Global Oral Health Program. (CEK). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Gary Taubes, MS, co-founder of Nutrition Science Initiative http://nusi.org/ . (Provided funding for CEK to travel to the Harvard Medical Library). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. National Cancer Institute (grant number CA-087472). (SAG). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

 Copyright: © 2017 Kearns et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

 Introduction

 In 2017, whether fructose-containing sugars (e.g., sucrose) and starch have differential effects on blood lipids continues to be debated in the scientific literature [1–3]. Studies funded by the food and beverage industry or conducted by authors with food and beverage industry conflicts of interest have been critical of evidence indicating that fructose has unique metabolic effects, while those without such conflicts reach an opposite conclusion [4–6]. The seemingly intractable nature of this controversy may be rooted in more than 60 years of food and beverage industry manipulation of science. We previously reported, based on internal sugar industry documents, that the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) secretly funded a 1967 review in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that discounted evidence linking sucrose consumption to coronary heart disease (CHD) [7]. Using the same methodology and internal document sources (see S1 Appendix), this paper presents data that suggest that in 1970, SRF withheld information from the public that the microbiome may be an important contributing factor to sucrose-induced hypertriglyceridemia and that sucrose consumption, compared to starch, might be associated with bladder cancer.

 The Sugar Association, a United States sucrose industry trade association [8] (which has organizational ties to SRF, the International Sugar Research Foundation [ISRF], and ISRF’s successor, the World Sugar Research Organisation, based in London, UK [9]), has consistently denied [10–12] that sucrose has any metabolic effects related to chronic disease beyond its caloric effects. On January 5, 2016, the Sugar Association issued a press release [13] criticizing findings from a study published in Cancer Research [14] using multiple mouse models that suggested that dietary sugar induces increased tumor growth and metastasis when compared to a nonsugar starch diet. The Sugar Association stated that “no credible link between ingested sugars and cancer has been established.” In contrast, this paper provides empirical data suggesting that the sugar industry terminated funding of an animal study that was finding unfavorable results with respect to the association between dietary sugars and cancer, with possible translational importance to humans.

 Our study contributes to a wider body of literature documenting industry manipulation of science. Industries seeking to influence regulation have a history of funding research resulting in industry-favorable interpretations of controversial evidence related to health effects of smoking [15,16], therapeutic effects of pharmaceutical drugs [17,18], the relationship between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain or obesity [5], and the causes of climate change, [19] among other issues. The tobacco industry also has a long history of conducting research on the health effects of its products that is often decades ahead of the general scientific community and not publishing results that do not support its agenda [20–23]. This paper provides empirical data suggesting that the sugar industry has a similar history of conducting, but not publishing studies with results that are counter to its commercial interests.

 SRF launches Project 259 Based on its sponsorship of the 1967 NEJM review [24,25], SRF was aware of peer-reviewed published animal evidence suggesting a role of intestinal microbiota in the differential effects of sucrose and starch on blood lipids. The NEJM review [25] reported that starch-fed rats had significantly higher biliary excretion of bile acids [26] and lower serum cholesterol levels [27] than sucrose-fed rats. When the antibiotic sulfasuxidene was added to similar diets, the serum cholesterol level of the starch-fed rats rose, while in sucrose-fed rats, it did not [27], leading the NEJM review to report, “dietary influence on the intestinal [microbiota] was therefore suggested” [25]. In correspondence with NEJM review author D. Mark Hegsted in 1965, SRF Vice President of Research John Hickson posited that the differential effects of sucrose and starch on serum cholesterol might be explained by differences in the bacterial synthesis of thiamine in the intestine [28]. Hickson [28] referred to a 1964 paper, “Dietary Fats and Intestinal Thiamine Synthesis in Rats” [29], which summarized experimental evidence from animals indicating that the dietary requirement for thiamine was dependent on the type of carbohydrate consumed. The paper reported that rats fed a thiamine-deficient diet develop symptoms of a thiamine deficiency more rapidly when fed glucose or sucrose compared to potato starch and that thiamine deficiency was delayed with the administration of antibiotics. These results, according to the article, suggested that both starches and certain antibiotics encouraged the growth of thiamine-synthesizing gut bacteria, while sucrose did not. Hickson referred to the role of intestinal thiamine synthesis in the differential effects of sucrose and starch on blood lipids as: Representative of a fact that has disturbed me for some time. The change from [sucrose] an essentially soluble [carbohydrate] to [raw starch] an essentially insoluble carbohydrate does provide a change in the [bacterial] synthesis [of thiamine in the intestine] and I have not been convinced that this factor has been eliminated [28]. In his correspondence with Hegsted, Hickson inquired about the possible role of intestinal thiamine synthesis in a then-recent clinical trial comparing the effect of carbohydrate quality on serum cholesterol levels conducted by Hegsted and colleagues [28]. In contrast to previous trials by other investigators, which had found differential effects of high-sucrose and high-starch diets on serum cholesterol, Hegsted and colleagues had found none. Hickson asked Hegsted whether these conflicting results might be related to differences in the thiamine status of experimental groups. It is not clear whether SRF communicated with Hegsted further about the role of gut microbiota and thiamine synthesis in the differential effects of sucrose and starch on blood lipids, but the industry continued to explore the topic. SRF launched Project 259 in 1968 [30] in an “attemp[t] to measure the nutritional effects of the [bacterial] organisms in the intestinal tract” when sucrose was consumed, compared to starch [31]. SRF explained Project 259’s rationale in an internal report: It has been postulated that there might be a dietary significance in the indigestible residues of starch in the intestinal contents, which might account for the observed differences in the lipid carbohydrate-interactions between the simple sugars versus complex sugars [32]. SRF consulted with Professor Alastair Frazer, head of the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, to select the experimental model [33]. Despite the conclusion of the SRF-sponsored NEJM review that animal models had little value in evaluating sucrose’s CHD risks, SRF selected the germ-free rat for Project 259 (germ-free isolators to create and maintain germ-free laboratory animals had been developed in the 1940s [34]). In the 1960s, parallel studies with germ-free and conventional rats were considered a good model to examine the relationship between dietary factors, the gut microbiota, and blood lipids [29]. SRF chose W.F.R. Pover, a colleague of Frazer’s at the University of Birmingham, to lead the project. He was provided US$29,304 (US$187,583 in 2016 dollars) between June 1968 and September 1970 to conduct the study [31].

 Project 259 links sucrose consumption to cancer SRF, which became ISRF in July 1968, initially authorized 15 months of funding for Project 259 between June 1968 and September 1969 [35]. By ISRF’s June 1969 site visit to Pover’s lab, because of delays in receiving the equipment needed for the main experiment, Pover had conducted only initial studies with various rat strains and germ-free guinea pigs [32]. Pover’s initial experiments produced results that ISRF representatives found to be “of particular interest” (Fig 1B) [32]. According to its September 1969 Quadrennial Report of Research, Among [Project 259’s] observations was … that the urine from rats on the basic diet contained an inhibitor of beta-glucorinidase activity in a quantity greater than that from sucrose-fed animals. This is one of the first demonstrations of a biological difference between sucrose and starch fed rats [emphasis added] [32]. PPT PowerPoint slide

 PowerPoint slide PNG larger image

 larger image TIFF original image Download: Fig 1. Experimental design for Project 259 and results reported to ISRF. (A) Project 259 was conducted using “germ-free” rats that were raised in isolators to limit their exposure to bacteria. The main study found rats fed a high-sugar diet showed a highly significant sharp decrease in triglycerides in the blood, compared to controls. (B) Project 259’s lead investigator, W.F.R. Pover, told ISRF that if the same rats showed an elevated triglyceride level after they were exposed to bacteria and fed the same high-sugar diet, “the role of bacteria in determining triglyceride levels will be proven conclusively [in rats]” [33]. ISRF terminated funding for the experiments before they could be completed. An initial preliminary study conducted before the main experiment found that rats fed a high-sugar diet had less of a beta-glucuronidase inhibitor in their urine than rats fed a basic PRM diet high in starch. Beta-glucuronidase is an enzyme, and high levels in the urine were known to be associated with bladder cancer in the 1960s. Image of rat vector icon credit: Rvector/Shutterstock.com. ISRF, International Sugar Research Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003460.g001 The ISRF report did not include data from Project 259 and did not elaborate further on the experimental design of the studies or the significance of the finding that starch inhibited urinary beta-glucuronidase compared to sucrose. Contemporaneous scientific publications, however, provide the context: elevated urinary beta-glucuronidase had been found to be positively associated with bladder cancer [36,37]. There was also some evidence that beta-glucuronidase activity was associated with atherosclerosis [38]. This incidental finding of Project 259 demonstrated to SRF that sucrose versus starch consumption caused different metabolic effects and suggested that sucrose, by stimulating urinary beta-glucuronidase, may have a role in the pathogenesis of bladder cancer.

 Project 259 links the microbiome to sucrose-induced hypertriglyceridemia In August 1970, Pover reported to ISRF that the main germ-free experiment had achieved promising results (Fig 1): There has been a sharp decrease in serum triglyceride of germfree rats fed a high sugar diet; there is no overlap with the serum triglyceride figures from rats fed the basic P.R.M. diet (a pelleted diet containing cereal meals, soybean meals, whitefish meal, and dried yeast, fortified with a balanced vitamin supplement and trace element mixture [39]) so this result is highly significant. We have yet to feed the starch diet. Both serum cholesterol and serum cholesterol ester values for germfree rats on sugar diet seem elevated; this result is not as clearcut as the triglyceride result and must await statistical evaluation before we can be sure. The role of bacteria in determining serum triglyceride levels will be proven conclusively if we can demonstrate that these same rats, when conven[t]ionalised, show elevated serum T.G.s [triglycerides] when fed a sugar diet. This will take about 18 weeks [33]. ISRF had previously authorized an extension of Project 259’s funding to September 1970, which was 3 months short of the time Pover needed to conclude the experiment [33]. The language in Pover’s report suggests he was confident that Project 259, taken to completion, would confirm the causal role of gut microbiota in the differential effects of sucrose and starch on serum triglycerides in rats.

 ISRF terminates Project 259 funding On September 10, 1970, as part of a strategic assessment of industry research conducted during the transition from SRF to ISRF, Hickson reported to industry executives on the contribution of SRF’s research projects to “elicit useful and significant information” to the sugar industry [33]. Hickson described the value of Project 259 as “nil” [33]. After supporting the project for 27 months, ISRF did not approve the additional 12 weeks of funding needed to complete the study. Knowing that additional funding was not forthcoming from ISRF, according to ISRF’s 1969–1970 Annual Report of Research, “Dr Pover ha[d] expressed hopes [to ISRF] of obtaining continuing support from other sources” [33]. No published papers were listed for Project 259 in the ISRF publication, Sugar Research 1943–1972 [30]. We could not identify any published results. A March 1974 ISRF report includes its internal interpretation of Project 259’s results: Observations showed significant increase in serum triglyceride level with rats having conventional [microbiota] on sucrose diets, whereas a decreasing effect was noted with germ-free rats, suggesting the triglycerides were formed from fatty acids produced in the small intestine by the fermentation of sucrose [30]. ISRF’s summary of Project 259 confirms that the sugar industry interpreted the results as indicating that intestinal bacteria had a role in sucrose-induced hypertriglyceridemia in rats.

Summary: – Just as the tobacco industry aimed to quash evidence of health risks linked to smoking, a new paper claims the Sugar Research Foundation decades ago suppressed research on the sugar's negative effects. The assertion comes via University of California at San Francisco researchers who reviewed internal sugar industry documents, per a release. NPR explains what they say they found: In 1968, the SRF funded a researcher's study that looked at the impact a high-sugar (versus starch) diet had on lab rats. The initial findings pointed to an increase in their triglyceride (that's a fat in your blood) levels and noted elevated levels of an enzyme linked to bladder cancer in their urine. The researcher shared initial findings, and SRF opted not to fund the previously authorized three-month extension needed to finish the research. "Had this information been made public, there would have been a lot more research scrutiny of sugar," says paper author Cristin Kearns. She suspects more potential manipulation as "ISRF sponsored more than 300 research projects between 1943 and 1972, and its successor organizations continue to fund research," she tells the Guardian. But one successor, the Sugar Association, argues the research published in PLOS Biology is only a "collection of speculations and assumptions." It says the 1968 study was ended because it was delayed, over budget, and occurred during "organizational restructuring" in which the SRF became the International Sugar Research Foundation. "There were plans to continue the study with funding from the British Nutrition Foundation, but, for reasons unbeknown to us, this did not occur."


Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Former religious affairs correspondent for the Guardian, Stephen Bates: ''It is an exposure of church hierarchy hypocrisy''

 Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the former leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, has admitted his sexual conduct has at times "fallen beneath the standards expected of me".

 He apologised and asked forgiveness from those he had "offended".

 In a statement, he also apologised to the Church and the people of Scotland.

 The cardinal resigned last Monday after three priests and a former priest had made allegations of improper behaviour against him dating back to the 80s.

 Cardinal O'Brien was Britain's most senior Roman Catholic cleric until he stood down as the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh.

 Life in retirement

 In announcing his resignation, he also said he would not take part in the election for a successor to Pope Benedict XVI, known as the conclave.

 Analysis Some will find it a relief that the cardinal's week-long silence has ended, and the issue of "sexual conduct" now at least has a name. But, as Cardinal O'Brien's statement is so conspicuously devoid of any detail, it seems to raise almost as many questions as it answers - particularly about the nature and timing of the occasions of that wrongdoing. His admission that his "conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal" could be taken to confirm that his improper behaviour continued beyond the time of the initial allegations in the 1980s into the recent past. Cardinal O'Brien is not in a position to say what sort of inquiry will now take place. The cardinal has not been accused of anything illegal, so it will be an internal investigation and the results might not be made public. It will be carried out by the Vatican under a new Pope, not by the Church in Scotland, and any punishment would depend on the circumstances of his improper sexual conduct. Whatever else it tells us, the cardinal's statement does sit uneasily with his years of outspoken denunciation of homosexual relationships.

 Sunday's further statement, issued through the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, read: "In recent days, certain allegations which have been made against me have become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them.

 "However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.

 "To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise.

 "I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland."

 The cardinal - who had initially said he was taking legal advice when the allegations against him were made public - had been due to retire later this month when he turned 75.

 The former priest and three current priests from the diocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh complained to the Pope's representative to Britain, Archbishop Antonio Mennini, in early February about what they alleged had been inappropriate behaviour towards them in the 1980s.

 Earlier on Sunday, the ex-priest told the Observer he had been disappointed by the "cold disapproval" he had faced from the Church for "daring to break ranks".

 He also claimed to have gone public only because he feared the matter was in danger of being swept under the carpet by the church.

 The BBC's correspondent in Rome, David Willey, said the news would no doubt affect the mood at the papal conclave at the Vatican.

 He added: "The Rome gathering is already overshadowed by allegations of scandal, intrigue and betrayal among the Vatican hierarchy.

 "The credibility of the Roman Catholic Church will be further damaged by Cardinal O'Brien's confession of inappropriate sexual behaviour."

 'Late-night drinking'

 Last week, the Observer reported that the former priest had claimed Cardinal O'Brien had made an inappropriate approach to him in 1980, after night prayers, when he was a seminarian at St Andrew's College, Drygrange.

 A second statement from another complainant said he had been living in a parish when he was visited by Cardinal O'Brien, and inappropriate contact had taken place between them.

 A third complainant alleged he had faced what he described as "unwanted behaviour" by the cardinal in the 1980s after some late-night drinking.

 The fourth complainant claimed the cardinal had used night prayers as an excuse for inappropriate contact, the newspaper said.

 Cardinal O'Brien, who was born in Ballycastle, Co Antrim, had been the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh since 1985.

 He has been an outspoken opponent of plans to legalise same-sex marriage in Scotland and was named "bigot of the year" by gay rights charity Stonewall last year.

 In an interview with BBC Scotland shortly before the allegations against him were made public, the cardinal said he believed priests should be able to marry and have children if they wished.

 He said it was clear many priests struggled to cope with celibacy. ||||| A key figure behind allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Cardinal Keith O'Brien has launched a powerful attack on the Catholic church's response to the complaints, saying he fears the church hierarchy would "crush" him if they could.

 Last Sunday the Observer revealed that the former priest, along with three serving priests, had reported O'Brien's behaviour to the Vatican, prompting the UK's most senior Catholic to resign the following day. Now the former priest, who says he was the subject of unwanted attention by O'Brien when he was a 20-year-old seminarian, has come forward to explain why he made his allegations public and to lambast the Scottish church leadership's reaction to last week's story.

 He is "disappointed" by the "lack of integrity" shown by the Catholic church. "There have been two sensations for me this week. One is feeling the hot breath of the media on the back of my neck and the other is sensing the cold disapproval of the church hierarchy for daring to break ranks. I feel like if they could crush me, they would," he told the Observer.

 He added that he was shocked when Peter Kearney, director of communications for the church in Scotland, claimed O'Brien's resignation was not linked to the Observer story and that the church did not know the details of the allegations.

 Kearney said he was unable to comment on suggestions that a new complaint had been lodged as a result of last week's story. When asked to outline the church's programme of support for complainants, he said only that they would be directed to Antonio Mennini, the Papal Nuncio, the Vatican's ambassador to Britain, to make a formal statement.

 "The vacuum the church has created has allowed whimsy and speculation to distort the truth," the priest said. "And the only support I have been offered is a cursory email with a couple of telephone numbers of counsellors hundreds of miles away from me. Anyway, I don't need counselling about Keith O'Brien's unwanted behaviour to me as a young man. But I may need counselling about the trauma of speaking truth to power."

 The former cleric says he feels that he, rather than the cardinal, has been the subject of scrutiny. "I have felt very alone and there is a tendency to become reclusive when people are trying to hunt you down."

 He said he felt particularly angered by demands that the identity of the four complainants be revealed: "To those who want to know my name I would say, what does that change? And what do you think I have done wrong?"

 He said that when the four came forward to the church, they were asked to make sworn signed statements to Mennini. But they were also warned that if their complaints became public knowledge, they would cause "immense further damage to the church". The church, he says, failed to act quickly and appropriately, adding that he fears the matter was in danger of being swept under the carpet.

 "For me, this is about integrity. I thought it was best to let the men and women who put their hard-earned cash in the plate every Sunday know what has been happening. If you pay into something you have a right, but also a duty, to know what you are paying for."

 He said that the men's complaints were not maliciously motivated. "I am as sinful as the next man – as my partner and pals frequently remind me. But this isn't about trying to own the moral high ground. I feel compassion for O'Brien, more compassion than the church is showing me, but the truth has to be available – even when that truth is hard to swallow."

 He also dismissed suggestions that the accusations contain an element of homophobia. " This is not about a gay culture or a straight culture. It's about an open culture. I would be happy to see an openly gay bishop, cardinal, or pope. But the church acts as if sexual identity has to be kept secret."

Summary: – At first he denied claims of sexual misconduct. Now Keith O'Brien, Britain's most powerful cardinal, has issued a statement apologizing for "times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal. To those I have offended, I apologize and ask forgiveness." Facing accusations from three current priests and a former priest, the 74-year-old Catholic leader says he will spend his remaining days in retirement and have no part in public life, the BBC reports. The accusations are similar—all alleging inappropriate approaches by O'Brien in the 1980s, usually after night prayers or late-night drinking. The former priest who pointed a finger at O'Brien told the Observer that he was "disappointed" by the Catholic church's "lack of integrity" and "the cold disapproval of the church hierarchy for daring to break ranks. I feel like if they could crush me, they would." Despite O'Brien's apparent interest in men, he has loudly opposed same-sex marriage rights in Scotland and was awarded "bigot of the year" by the gay rights group Stonewall.


Snap is making its investors' money disappear. After plunging 23% on its first quarter earnings report, Snap shares -- of which a mere 8.7% are sold short -- have further to fall.

 I see three reasons for that: a man-child CEO, the competitive threat from Facebook, and an undisciplined growth strategy. (I have no financial interest in the securities mentioned in this post).

 On May 10, Snap reported slower revenue growth and a bigger loss than analysts expected. More specifically, its $2.21 billion loss or $2.31 a share was a whopping $1.10 higher than the FactSet consensus.

 That 36% sequential increase in revenue to $149.6 million fell $8.7 million below the FactSet consensus and below the 53% growth it enjoyed in the same quarter of 2016. What's more, Snap's average revenue per user fell 14.3% from the previous quarter to 90 cents on a 36% boost to 166 million daily active users.

 There are three compelling reasons to bet against this company's stock.

 1. Man-child CEO

 Evan Spiegel's conduct in Snap's May 10 conference call reflects the most frightening issue for investors in its stock. Thanks to the insurmountable voting control of Spiegel and CTO Robert Murphy who hold nearly 89% of its voting power, investors in its shares have no recourse but to pay the tuition for the CEO's on the job training.

 And Spiegel does need lots of training -- after all he sounded convinced that he could snap (pun intended) his fingers and change how investors evaluate whether to buy or sell stock.

 According to Bloomberg, he "spoke as if the quarter was a success. He deflected questions and concerns by explaining that people may just not understand the value of his platform yet, or the company’s unique business model. For advertisers, the biggest hurdle is 'education' about how effective Snap’s products can be, he said. And when it comes to adding users, he said Snap doesn’t stoop to the 'growth hacking' tactics of rivals, like asking people to add all their phone contacts as friends, which he views as unsustainable."

 Maybe Spiegel will learn fast and turn into a great CEO. But since he is surrounded by a bubble that pampers his every whim and is securely ensconced on his throne thanks to his voting control of the stock he is likely to remain the same self-satisfied Spiegel he is today.

 2. Facebook

 His blasé attitude towards investors would be fine were Snap the only stock out there.

 For example, Facebook is eating Snap's lunch. In April, Facebook's Instagram said it had "200 million daily users of Instagram Stories, a feature of the photo-sharing app that mimics Snapchat's popular function," according to the Wall Street Journal.

 Users say they prefer the Facebook feature. 25% of respondents in an April survey of 3,000 Americans conducted by Goodwater Capital prefer Stories on one of Facebook's platforms -- 13 percentage points more than those who said they like Snapchat's Stories better.

 Spiegel displayed what looks to me like overconfidence in the face of the threat from Facebook. As he said in the conference call, “If you want to be a creative company, you have got to be comfortable with and enjoy the fact that people copy your products if you make great stuff. Just because Yahoo! has a search box doesn’t mean they’re Google.”

 3. Undisciplined growth strategy

 Facebook has a similarly entrenched CEO and suffered a big plunge in its stock after its initial public offering. But unlike Snap, Facebook had and still does have a disciplined growth strategy.

 In Facebook's May 2012 prospectus, it cited as a big risk that it had no mobile strategy. Today, Facebook gets 86% of its revenue from mobile advertising. This is one of the more significant proof points that Mark Zuckerberg is more capable than Spiegel when it comes to identifying important untapped growth opportunities and taking the steps needed to grab a significant market share of them.

 Snap's growth strategy appears undisciplined to me. The company is spending more on advertising deepening its operating loss, "which more than doubled to $188 million and surpassed its revenue of $149.6 million," according to the Journal.

 As Snap grows, it is suffering from severe diseconomies of scale. In the first quarter of 2017, its costs per daily active user soared over 12-fold from $1.16 to $14.24 as its revenue per DAU declined 14.3%.

 And Snap's growth vectors -- new services and new geography -- appear flawed. For example, Snap was running into technical problems with its Android version. As BusinessInsider wrote, "Android bugs had contributed to its slowed user growth in Q4."

 Snap seems to be trying a throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach to new features. These include a "'Snap to Store' ad offering, which ties campaigns back to foot traffic in physical stores" -- but given Amazon's success at the expense of physical stores, this seems like two drowning men intertwining on their way down.

 Snap is also struggling to expand geographically -- Spiegel said that internet access in less-developed parts of the world is "a real issue" and he infuriated "India over an alleged comment [he] made about not caring about 'poor countries,'" according to BusinessInsider.

 Snap has $1.4 billion in cash and burned through $173 million in free cash flow in the first quarter of 2017, according to Snap. Since it has no long-term debt, Snap does not seem to be in the kind of imminent cash flow danger that would warrant selling its shares short.

 It could make sense to investigate an options-based strategy to bet on the decline in Snap's stock. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Traders at the post where Snap Inc. is traded on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Thomson Reuters Oh, Snap.

 The newly public company plummeted as much as 24% to $17.59 on the first day of regular trading after a disappointing earnings report that saw user growth slow to its lowest pace in years.

 The stock on Thursday afternoon was trading just above the company's initial-public-offering price of $17. Snap also missed consensus forecasts for adjusted earnings and revenue.

 But it wasn't all bad news for stock investors — short sellers are poised to make a killing on the share plunge. The day before the report, they pushed bearish wagers on the stock to the highest level since Snap's March 1 IPO, selling a whopping $100 million short over the past week alone, according to data compiled by the financial analytics firm S3 Partners.

 It's sweet redemption for the bearish Snap speculators, who had lost $28.4 million on a mark-to-market basis betting on the company following the IPO, according to S3 data.

 On the other side of the ledger is Snap cofounder and CEO Evan Spiegel. Worth roughly $5 billion heading into the earnings release, according to wealth rankings compiled by Bloomberg, Spiegel is out about $1 billion following the stock decline.

 As Spiegel and his Snap colleagues look to rebound, Wall Street analysts are split on whether they'll be able to pull it off.

 With a price target of $14, Nomura sees Snap sliding further, citing "incrementally fierce competition from deeper-pocketed rivals including Facebook."

 Pivotal Research is even more pessimistic, calling for Snap to fall all the way to $9 a share. They noted a "surprising element of seasonality" in the business, while lamenting the risk that Snap wouldn't grow by as much as the firm previously expected.

 Some of the biggest banks on Wall Street line up on the other side of the Snap debate. Goldman Sachs has a price target of $27 and believes the company's "audience and engagement represent a unique asset that will benefit from growth and diversification of internet usage and advertiser adoption as both mature."

 Citi shares a similar sentiment. While the firm acknowledges that Snap's first earnings report will be a hurdle in the short term, it sees "the low rate of monetization and the high rate of engagement enabling revenue growth and margin leverage over the long-term." ||||| Too early to call Snap's future: Analyst Thursday, 11 May 2017 | 6:18 AM ET | 03:35

 Evan Spiegel's Snap faces one major hurdle that Facebook didn't have when it went public five years ago, equity strategist Michael Graham told CNBC on Thursday.

 The senior equity strategist at Canaccord Genuity spoke a day after Snapchat's parent fell short of Wall Street expectations for revenue and user growth in its first earnings report as a public company. The report was also an indicator on how the company has fared as Facebook pushes aggressively into its turf.

 That's "a big competitor right in front of them," Graham said on "Squawk Box." "The fact that every month Snap will be battling [Facebook's] Instagram for users is a real difference in the two stories."

 When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the social media company public in May 2012, he faced the rise of Pinterest and Twitter setting records in part from the U.S. presidential election. Facebook acquired Instagram a month earlier.

Summary: – It was a tough day for Snap Inc., and particularly CEO Evan Spiegel, on Wednesday. Snap stock plummeted 24% to $17.59 per share after the company's first quarterly earnings report since going public showed disappointing revenue growth and the slowest pace of user growth in years, reports Business Insider. That meant Spiegel lost $1 billion of his $5 billion fortune, though shares climbed to $18.76 on Thursday. More on what that means: It's bad, but not unprecedented, reports the Los Angeles Times, noting Facebook stock fell 10% and Twitter stock fell 22% following the first quarterly earnings report after an IPO. Snap's user growth, it states, will be key to watch going forward. While Facebook rebounded from its 2012 hit, Snap faces a hurdle that Facebook didn't, an equity strategist tells CNBC: It has Facebook as a competitor. Indeed, the Stories feature on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, has some 200 million daily users. Snapchat has 166 million. Spiegel seems flippant. "People are going to copy your product if you build great stuff," he said during Wednesday's conference call with investors. "Just because Yahoo has a search box doesn't make it Google." But that line raises a red flag for Peter Cohan, who says it's time to bet against Snap. The company's "man-child CEO" is the "most frightening issue for investors in its shares," who "have no recourse but to pay the tuition for the CEO's on the job training," he writes at Forbes, also citing Snap's "undisciplined growth strategy." Nomura and Pivotal Research both appear concerned, expecting Snap stock to fall to $14 and $9 per share, respectively. But Goldman Sachs and Citi are more confident, with the former claiming "audience and engagement represent a unique asset that will benefit from growth and diversification of internet usage and advertiser adoption as both mature."


Gisele is pregnant with another baby that will probably grow up so beautiful that it too will earn more in a day than you do in a year. Oh, it's with her husband, Tom Brady, but would be infinitely more interesting if it wasn't. "Yes, she is pregnant," squealed a source. "They are really happy!" Just once, to shake things up, I'd love to hear a celebrity baby announcement that's less enthusiastic. "Yes, she is pregnant," droned a source, "and she's just like -ugh- about the whole thing." [NYDN]

 Though maybe, like Gisele, the tot will be rejected by 42 modeling agents first. [Us]

 Blind dates may be the worst, but Charlize Theron says it's even more uncomfortable if you're super famous and are doing it for charity. She found this out the hard way when she agreed to auction herself off and found herself stuck with some creepy rich dude for the night. "They trick you with the ‘people are suffering' thing. You fall for it and before you know it you're at a restaurant with some stranger. Like you could end up in Dahmer's apartment," she said, adding that she had to call in a couple of her friends for back-up because the dude was giving her the willies. "Rich people can be creeps, too! Look, I'd rather just give the money [to charity]. It was a scary thing. And [the guy] was weird." [Just Jared]

 Advertisement

 Kate Bosworth and her director boyfriend, Michael Polish, enjoyed a 30-minute public fight at the CFDA after-party on Tuesday morning. There was shouting, arm-grabbing, slack-jawed stares, but, despite all that, it turned out to be a fizzler as they were canoodling before night's end. Sidenote: this reporter, though failing to find out the context of their tiff, seems to have an awful lot of other details. The best bit: "Although the dance music drowned out much of their heated conversation, we did hear him yell ‘I'm sorry!' and Bosworth repeatedly bark ‘No!' as a large vein bulged in her forehead." [NYDN]

 Advertisement

 The frankly bizarre relationship between John Myer and Taylor Swift just won't die. First the former has a big cry-baby whine session to Rolling Stone and now the pair are causing delightfully dramatic public scenes when running into each other at West Hollywood bar/restaurants. "Taylor very visibly - in front of the entire restaurant - demanded to be moved to the other side," said a fellow diner. "The bar's usually an oasis of calm and privacy for celebrities and power players, but this was drama central." [Page Six]

 Advertisement

 When asked if she'll be making music with her good pal Rihanna anytime soon, Katy Perry said they'd be making sweet music together well before they went into the studio together. "No, but we're going to have sex," she said. [The Sun] ||||| Gisele Bundchen in Rio de Janeiro on June 5, 2012. Credit: CHRISTOPHE SIMON/AFP/Getty Images

 Lil' Patriot -- and/or supermodel! -- on board!

 After a couple weeks of speculation, Gisele Bundchen and husband Tom Brady are expecting their second child together, a source confirms exclusively to Us Weekly.

 "Yes, she is pregnant," the source tells Us, adding that the Brazilian catwalker, 31, is "three months" along. "They are really happy!" the source says.

 PHOTOS: Is Gisele the hottest mom ever?

 The baby-to-be will join big brother Benjamin, the couple's two-year-old son. Bundchen wed the handsome New England Patriots quarterback, 34, in April 2009; he also has a 4-year-old son, Jack, with ex-girlfriend Bridget Moynahan.

 PHOTOS: Supermodel moms

 The Victoria's Secret catwalker begged out of the 13th annual Best Buddies Event in Hyannis Port, Mass. -- which Brady chaired -- over the weekend. But so far, even three months along, Bundchen barely has a bump to conceal. In a Boston park with Benjamin June 1, she offered a tiny glimpse of a growing belly in a loose-fitting beige top, which she accessorized with skin-tight pants, shades and a scarf.

 BAUER-GRIFFIN.COM

 Bundchen -- who has made a slew of controversial comments over the years about breastfeeding, her husband's 2012 Super Bowl loss (she blamed his teammates), her work ethic, the alleged dangers of sunscreen and more -- admitted in late 2010 that she wanted to grow her family.

 PHOTOS: Tom and Gisele's most romantic moments

 "I want more kids for sure, but I don't know when," she told British Vogue, adding that "I have my hands full" with Benjamin and her stepson Jack.

 "For Benjamin, his big brother is his hero," said the 5'11" stunner. "Jack comes in and Benjamin has a big smile. He wants to follow him around. Anything he does, he's just in awe of him like, 'Oh my God!'"

Summary: – Brace yourself: Another depressingly good-looking human is on its way. Gisele Bundchen and Tom Brady are expecting once again, according to Us Weekly. Bundchen is three months into the pregnancy, an insider tells the magazine, which helpfully notes that there isn't much of a baby bump thus far. The couple already has a 2-year-old, Benjamin; Brady has a 4-year-old son, Jack, from a previous relationship. "They are really happy!" the source says. As for the rest of us: Let's hope the "superbaby" doesn't "destroy us all," Jezebel warns.


(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

 By a 2-1 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Joan Langbord and her sons Roy and David are the rightful owners of the double eagle $20 gold pieces, after the government ignored their claim to the coins and missed a deadline to seek their forfeiture.

 “The government knew that it was obligated to bring a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding or to return the property, but refused,” Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell wrote. “Having failed to do so, it must return the Double Eagles to the Langbords.”

 Patricia Hartman, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger in Philadelphia, said: “We are weighing our options.”

 The Philadelphia Mint in 1933 produced 445,500 double eagles. But they were not circulated because President Franklin Roosevelt, trying to halt a bank panic, removed gold coins from circulation and made ownership of large amounts illegal.

 Most of the coins were melted down, but a few were smuggled out, including one that fetched $7.6 million at a 2002 auction after having once been possessed by Egypt’s King Farouk.

 The government had long suspected without proving that the late Israel Switt, a gold dealer and father of Joan Langbord, had smuggled some of the coins with the help of a Mint employee.

 It seized the Langbords’ double eagles after the family located the coins in a safe deposit box once belonging to Switt, and sought to have the Mint authenticate them.

 But when the Langbords filed a “seized asset claim” in September 2005, the government neither returned the coins nor sought their forfeiture within 90 days, as required under the federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.

 The family sued, but a federal jury in July 2011 said the government could keep the coins, and the trial judge later agreed. Rendell, though, said the CAFRA violation justified the coins’ return.

 Barry Berke, a lawyer for the Langbords said: “The Langbords are thrilled to receive their property back after fighting to vindicate their rights for over a decade.”

 The case is Langbord et al v. U.S. Department of the Treasury et al, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-4574.

 (This version of the story corrects last name in seventh and eighth paragraphs to “Switt” from “Swift”) ||||| A federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. Mint must return 10 rare gold coins to the heirs of a Philadelphia coin dealer who obtained them decades ago under mysterious circumstances.

 By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on Friday ruled that the coins, famed Depression-era $20 gold pieces known as “Double Eagles,” were improperly confiscated by the government in 2004, and must be...

Summary: – In 1933, the US Mint in Philadelphia minted almost half a million $20 gold coins, known as double eagles. But with the nation in the throes of the Depression and fearing a bank run, FDR blocked their release and most were melted down. A few managed to wander out of the Mint, however, including 10 that have been at the center of a decade-long legal contest between a Philadelphia family that found them in a safe deposit box and the federal government, which claims the family patriarch stole them. The latest chapter in that fight comes via the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, reports Reuters, which ruled Friday that the feds must return the coins to Joan Langbord and sons Roy and David. At stake is a little more than the $200 face value: A double eagle sold for $7.6 million in a 2002 auction. The feds think Joan Langbord's father, gold dealer Israel Switt, swiped the coins. Treasury seized them when the Langbords found them in Switt's safe deposit box in 2003 and tried to authenticate them, notes the Wall Street Journal. But when the Langbords filed a seized-asset claim in 2005, the government failed to respond in the required 90 days. "The government knew that it was obligated to bring a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding or to return the property, but refused," wrote a judge. "Having failed to do so, it must return the Double Eagles to the Langbords." Says a Langbord lawyer: "The Langbords are thrilled to receive their property back after fighting to vindicate their rights for over a decade."


UPDATE: Abu Dhabi Police confirm American victim was killed in attack and want witnesses to come forward

 ABU DHABI // A woman was stabbed at Boutik Mall on Reem Island on Monday afternoon, witnesses said.

 Mall employees and shoppers said the altercation took place between two women in the ladies public toilets outside of Waitrose supermarket in the Sun and Sky Tower complex.

 By 4pm Abu Dhabi Police and mall security had cordoned off the public bathrooms and one of the elevators outside of Waitrose where blood stains could be seen on the floor and along a rubbish bin by the elevators.

 Police on the scene declined to comment on the incident and Aldar Properties, the developer that owns the building, said it would not comment as it was a matter for the police.

 One witness, who did not wish to give his name, said he saw a woman bleeding on the floor outside of the supermarket's entrance.

 Another witness who works at a restaurant close to where the stabbing took place said the incident occurred in the disabled toilet while she was using the adjacent toilet.

 She said she could hear the two women arguing.

 "Women go to the bathroom together and gossip, talk and argue all the time," said Vithi Cuc, a Vietnamese who has been working in the mall for over a year.

 "But then I heard one of them threatening the other saying 'Sit down or I'll kill you'."

 The restaurant employee said she then heard banging sounds from the stall.

 "I heard one of them try to call out for help. By this time there were three of us outside the toilet and one of us ran to get security. When the female security guard arrived they told us to leave the bathroom. I was so scared and frightened for her," she said.

 The condition of the woman who was stabbed is not known and police did not comment when asked if any arrests were made.

 tsubaihi@thenational.ae

 UPDATE: Abu Dhabi Police confirm American victim was killed in attack and want witnesses to come forward ||||| A murder investigation has been launched after an American mother was stabbed to death during a clash with a burqa-clad 'woman' in shopping mall toilets in Abu Dhabi.

 The 37-year-old kindergarten teacher, who has 11-year-old twin boys, was stabbed with a knife in the altercation in the ladies' toilets a supermarket in Boutik Mall on Reem island in the United Arab Emirates capital.

 She was taken to be treated at Sheikh Khalifa Medical City but died later from her injuries in the incident on Monday afternoon.

 The victim - who is divorced from the father of the twins - has not been identified. Her initials are only known as ABR.

 Police say they do not know if it was a woman or a man in the burqa.

 Witnesses told police the pair had been embroiled in an argument in the public toilets, which are beside a branch of Waitrose, an upscale British supermarket chain which has a presence in the Middle East.

 Scroll down for video

 Assailant: Local police released this picture of the attacker fleeing the scene

 Escaping: Police released this image from CCTV of the woman making her way from the crime scene

 Officers are still trying to determine the reasons for the attack and the identity of the suspect, who fled the scene wearing an abaya, black gloves and the face-covering veil known as a niqab.

 The victim's ex-husband was said to be overseas but was flying back to comfort his sons.

 They were being looked after by community police officers.

 Colonel Rashid Bourshid, director of the criminal investigation department of Abu Dhabi police, said: 'Police found the woman lying on the floor bleeding.

 'She had serious wounds after being stabbed with a knife during a brawl with the attacker.

 'No reason has been established yet as to why the woman was murdered. The attacker fled the scene after stabbing the woman.'

 The victim worked at a private school in Abu Dhabi and lived with her sons in the city.

 Mall employees witnessed the altercation with her attacker.

 Col Bourshid said a murder investigation had been launched and police were searching for the suspect.

 The suspect - apparently a woman - was described as wearing an abaya, black jacket and gloves.

 New: The mall where the attack took place opened in 2011 and has 50 shops and restaurants. It caters for a mix of expatriates and wealthy locals

 Glitzy: The scene of the murder was the Reem island mall development, which sits between two towers and was opened in 2011

 He added: 'Community policing is now taking care of the two boys and will provide them with shelter and all necessary support until their father, who stays outside the UAE, arrives.'

 It was not known whether the boys were with her at the time of the attack.

 Reem island is a residential, commercial and business development connected to Abu Dhabi city centre by a bridge. It was built as the city center became over-populated.

 It is mostly inhabited by expatriates and boasts the upmarket Boutik Mall, which opened in 2011 and has 50 shops and restaurants, including the capital city's first Waitrose, Leopold's of London and La Brioche.

 The mall bridges two residential buildings, Sun and Sky towers. Its website says it 'offers the best of everything that anyone needs to lead a stylish life.

 'Serving the vibrant and cosmopolitan community of Shams Abu Dhabi and beyond, Boutik is an oasis of independent retailers, brand outlets, comfortable cafes and day-to-day services.

 'For busy professionals living and working in the adjoining towers and for students at the Sorbonne, it is a welcome social centre and cornerstone of the community.'

Summary: – Police in Abu Dhabi are searching for a suspect who killed an American woman in an upscale mall, but they don't have much to go on: The black-clad person captured on security footage had his or her face covered with a niqab. Police say the 37-year-old woman, a kindergarten teacher with 11-year-old twin sons, was stabbed during an argument in a women's bathroom on Monday and died in a hospital from her injuries, the Daily Mail reports. Witnesses tell the National that they heard two women arguing. "Women go to the bathroom together and gossip, talk, and argue all the time," a mall restaurant worker says. "But then I heard one of them threatening the other, saying, 'Sit down or I'll kill you.'" A police spokesman says investigators are still trying to determine a motive and will "spare no effort in order to unveil this heinous crime and bring the culprit to justice." The woman's children are being cared for by authorities until her ex-husband arrives from overseas, police say.


Speaker Paul Ryan said he will no longer "defend Trump" or campaign with him. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO Ryan abandons Trump The House speaker all but conceded that Clinton will win and said he plans to campaign only for a GOP Congress.

 Speaker Paul Ryan told House Republicans on a conference call Monday morning that he’s done defending Donald Trump and will focus on maintaining his party’s increasingly imperiled House majority, according to sources on the call.

 The message amounted to a concession by the highest-ranking elected Republican that his nominee for president can’t win — and lawmakers should save themselves and the Republican-controlled Congress to act as a check on Hillary Clinton.

 Story Continued Below

 Ryan stopped short of formally rescinding his endorsement of Trump — but just short. His move carries immense risk, and Ryan faced blowback from all sides: Trump and his surrogates warned Republican leaders they would pay a price for breaking from the nominee; some rank-and-file Republicans warned the strategy was a mistake; and immediately after the call, Clinton tweeted to her nearly 10 million followers that “Ryan is still endorsing Trump.”

 Trump tweeted after the call that "Paul Ryan should spend more time on balancing the budget, jobs and illegal immigration and not waste his time on fighting Republican nominee." And a Trump supporter in the House, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, sharply criticized Republican leaders on the call for not doing enough to support Trump, sources said.

 The continued fallout set off alarms among Republicans about a potential down-ballot wave that imperils not only the Senate, which Democrats are already in a strong position to win, but the until-now seemingly impenetrable House majority. At this point, the imperative for vulnerable Republicans on the ballot is simply political survival.

 Ryan told his members that “you all need to do what’s best for you in your district," said a source on the call, giving rank-and-file lawmakers political cover to disavow Trump. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California urged the lawmakers to take a deep breath and focus on their own races.

 It was the biggest and most dramatic split between the highest-ranking Republican lawmaker on Capitol Hill and the party's presidential nominee. Ryan has pushed back repeatedly on Trump's most outrageous comments or positions, but until now, he has refused to openly break with the nominee.

 Ryan and House Republicans are cognizant they could face a backlash from Trump supporters. With less than a month to go in the campaign, an open rupture between the presidential nominee and down-ballot Republicans could turn off independent voters and depress turnout among base voters, compounding their problems from the top of the ticket.

 "The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities," said AshLee Strong, Ryan's spokeswoman.

 Ryan will be campaigning in 17 states and 42 cities this month, with additional events planned, said GOP sources.

 The conference call came as GOP congressional leaders and rank-and-file members have grown increasingly tired of Trump's rhetoric, uneven public appearances and lewd language. On Friday, a 2005 videotape was released showing Trump making vulgar comments about women, including suggesting he could grab them against their will because he was a celebrity. The video spurred dozens of House and Senate GOP lawmakers to revoke their endorsements of Trump or say they will vote for vice presidential nominee Mike Pence.

 Trump apologized for his 2005 comments, but then tried to go on the offensive during Sunday's presidential debate by repeatedly invoking accusations from women of improper sexual advances by former President Bill Clinton. Trump accused Hillary Clinton of trying to destroy the credibility of these women.

 The move delighted some of the most hard-core conservatives but further alienated other Republicans, who see it as having nothing to do with beating Hillary Clinton.

 Other Trump supporters on the conference call said they wouldn't or couldn't concede the presidential race to Clinton. They included Reps. Billy Long of Missouri, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Trent Franks of Arizona and Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, among others.

 "A lot of these guys feel like there is a moral imperative to beating Hillary Clinton," said a source on the call.

 "Having [Clinton] as commander in chief is something they just can't accept," added a GOP lawmaker. "It just strikes them as appalling."

 Yet National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon and GOP strategists are warning that Trump's poll numbers are tanking, and he could drag the House and Senate Republcian majorities down with him. To Ryan, McCarthy and other party leaders, acting as a check on Clinton if she wins is a more viable option — and a far more likely outcome — than a Trump victory.

 "We're in a terrible place," said a separate GOP lawmaker. "We're damned if we do [stick with Trump] and damned if we don't."

 ||||| We've detected that JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Would you like to proceed to legacy Twitter?

 Yes ||||| ST. LOUIS — House Speaker Paul Ryan has discussed withdrawing his endorsement of Donald Trump, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions within his inner circle.

 Ryan (R-Wis.) has publicly and privately grown dismayed by the tone and tenor of Trump's campaign, according to the sources. And Ryan has reviewed with close advisers whether to abandon the GOP nominee. The discussions occurred after the bombshell video Friday of Trump talking in predatory terms about his sexual exploits, but before the second presidential debate Sunday night.

 Story Continued Below

 Ryan is gathering House Republicans on a conference call Monday at 11 a.m.

 No decision has been made. But that the speaker of the House has even mulled abandoning his own party's presidential nominee is illustrative of the extraordinarily bizarre political climate in the Republican Party.

 "I think they all face the same dilemma, to varying degrees," a senior House Republican leadership aide said, echoing the sentiment of multiple high-level aides and lawmakers interviewed by POLITICO. "How to express displeasure in a meaningful way. ... How best to help members in tough races. ... How to try to rebuild the party post the anticipated apocalypse. I think they are all having individual and group discussions wrestling with this."

 Trump's performance during Sunday's ugly and oftentimes vicious debate may have been enough to stanch GOP support from bleeding further. Over the weekend, nearly three dozen Senate and House Republicans either said that they couldn't vote for Trump or urged him to leave the ticket, after the release of the video, in which he bragged about trying to lure a woman into an affair and claimed that he kisses and fondles women with impunity because he is famous. The scandal threatened to derail Trump's campaign.

 A number of Senate and House Republicans in tough races have already announced they won't back Trump, leaving their leaders to decide whether to follow suit.

 Trump, in turn, has lashed out at establishment Republicans who abandoned him. Capitol Hill GOP insiders are fretting about the political situation they're now in. If they criticize Trump, they could lose the support of the Republican base. If they don't, independents might flee.

 The Wall Street Journal editorial page, frequently sympathetic to Ryan, suggested Sunday that GOP congressional leaders withdraw their support for Trump if they need to do so to save their majorities.

 "They can’t be blamed for breaking from Mr. Trump if that is what their consciences demand or if that is the best path to political survival this year," the Journal's editorial board wrote. "At some point Republicans running for the House and Senate may have to mobilize voters with an argument that they need them as a check on Hillary Clinton."

 Ryan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have all disavowed Trump's 2005 comments. Trump on Sunday night dismissed the video as "locker room talk" and tried to move beyond the controversy.

 "I apologized to my family, I apologized to the American people. Certainly I'm not proud of it, but this is locker room talk," Trump added. "Yes, I'm very embarrassed by it. I hate it. But it's locker room talk."

 An incident before the debate also alarmed Capitol Hill Republicans. Trump held an impromptu news event Sunday evening with three women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. Many Republican elected officials were hoping Trump wouldn't go there, given that Bill Clinton has been out of office for nearly 17 years. Trump suggested Hillary Clinton enabled her husband's improper behavior by attacking the credibility of his accusers.

 The four women who attended the event, broadcast on Facebook, were Paula Jones, Kathy Shelton, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. Jones, Willey and Broaddrick have accused Bill Clinton of making improper sexual advances, while Shelton said Hillary Clinton undermined her credibility while defending a client during a 1970s rape case.

 "These four courageous women have asked to be here, and it was our honor to help them," Trump said.

 The Clinton campaign dismissed the event as part of Trump's "destructive race to the bottom." But elements in the GOP base pine for that confrontational style. And it indicated to some Republicans that Trump will fight on and keep the race close. That is one thing that helps congressional Republicans.

 ||||| Kellyanne Conway throws down the gauntlet to Paul Ryan

 Donald Trump’s campaign manager challenged House Speaker Paul Ryan on Monday not to dump her boss.

 “I certainly hope Speaker Ryan keeps his word and his endorsement of Donald Trump,” Kellyanne Conway said on “CBS This Morning” -- an aspiration she delivered with a veiled threat.

 Story Continued Below

 “Speaker Ryan, of course, took to the stage in Wisconsin in his event and faced some boos from the crowd because those who were [there] expected to see Donald Trump," Conway added. "But we’re happy the speaker of the House has endorsed the nominee Donald Trump.”

 Ryan, who will convene a call with House Republicans later Monday morning, has already discussed rescinding his lukewarm endorsement of the GOP nominee with his top advisers, though no decision has been made yet.

 Ryan disinvited Trump from a campaign event in Wisconsin last weekend after a bombshell tape leaked to The Washington Post on Friday, revealing a braggadocious Trump in 2005 talking about attempting adultery and getting away with sexual assault because he’s famous.

 The revelations of Trump’s extremely crude comments, caught on a video by a hot mic inside an “Access Hollywood” bus, has sparked an exodus from dozens of Republicans, many of whom have called for him to step down or pledged not to vote for him.

 Conway argued that the defections show “many of them don't wanna support him and we’re gonna to take the case directly to the voters.” But she was also hopeful that Trump’s performance in Sunday’s second presidential debate would put a bandage on a damaging weekend, noting that she would welcome back the defections with open arms.

 “I can tell you as the campaign manager, we certainly welcome them back, and we hope they saw on display last night somebody who’s willing to a take the case to Hillary Clinton,” she said. “If those members can live with giving the next three or four Supreme Court justices over to Hillary Clinton, they should think about that.”

 Trump himself, though, has been less genial and optimistic. Trump said in multiple tweets over the weekend that he “WILL NEVER DROP OUT OF THE RACE” and boasted “[t]remendous support (except for some Republican ‘leadership’).” He later predicted that “many self-righteous hypocrites” who have abandoned him in the wake of his sexually aggressive comments would see their poll numbers go down and lose their reelection bids. ||||| Paul Ryan told a crowd at a fall festival in Wisconsin that there was a "troubling" "elephant in the room," after the Washington Post revealed a 2005 recording of Trump speaking in very lewd terms about women. (The Washington Post)

 A decision Monday by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to not campaign with or defend Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump through the November election sparked a public feud with his party’s standard-bearer within a matter of hours, suggesting that a widening split within the GOP could reverberate long after the presidential race is decided.

 Ryan’s move — and a blunt assessment of the race that he and other congressional leaders delivered during a conference call with House GOP lawmakers Monday morning — underscored the perilous choice Republican officials now face in the wake of Friday’s release of a 2005 videotape in which Trump made lewd comments about women:

 They can remain in line with their nominee, which would please their base but could alienate swing voters critical to maintaining their hold on Congress. Or they could renounce Trump and offend Republicans eager for a direct confrontation with Hillary Clinton and her husband.

 For his part, the speaker — who canceled an appearance with Trump after the videotape surfaced Friday — did neither. He won’t publicly campaign with Trump, but he also did not rescind his endorsement of his party’s controversial nominee or back away from his pledge to vote for him.

 One GOP lawmaker said Ryan (R-Wis.) was confronted on the call by at least a half-dozen members from districts ranging from California to Ohio who bristled at any attempt to distance the party from Trump.

 “He got huge pushback like I’ve never seen before from members from across the country just saying that was the wrong move — and even if it cost them the House,” said one lawmaker on the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe the private discussion.

 Late in the call, after several members had criticized GOP leaders, Ryan got back on the line to assure them that he was not planning to rescind his endorsement. But that appeared to do little to assure the pro-Trump contingent.

 “A number of people said: You can’t have it both ways. You’ve either got to get out and be wholly supportive . . . or it really doesn’t matter,” the GOP lawmaker said.

 The lawmaker, who represents a safe Republican district where Trump is popular, told The Washington Post that he had heard much the same from his own constituents: “They’re just so fed up with Washington, D.C., that all the rest of this stuff is a side point. . . . They’re willing to overlook a whole lot to try to take back the country.”

 But Rep. Charlie Dent — a moderate who does not support Trump — also spoke up on the call, saying, “Our nominee should step aside, though I realize it is probably logistically impractical at this moment.”

 Dent said he warned his fellow Republicans: “Does anyone on the call not think there are worse revelations to come? I would be shocked if there were not more revelations, and what’s our plan when the next one hits?”

 Trump lashed out at Ryan on Monday, tweeting that the speaker “should spend more time on balancing the budget, jobs and illegal immigration and not waste his time on fighting Republican nominee.” Within a matter of minutes, more than 6,300 people had favorited the tweet.

 Paul Ryan should spend more time on balancing the budget, jobs and illegal immigration and not waste his time on fighting Republican nominee — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 10, 2016

 The widening chasm between GOP establishment leaders and Trump, who is now emboldened given his assertive debate performance Sunday night, has moved the party into uncharted territory in the final weeks of an already volatile and unpredictable presidential contest. Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, and his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, took to the airwaves Monday to make it clear that Trump intends to remain on the offensive for the duration of the campaign. And Trump’s senior communications adviser, Jason Miller, tweeted that “nothing’s changed” after the congressional call, because his candidate has always been a Washington outsider.

 Re: today’s Congressional call: Nothing’s changed. Mr. Trump’s campaign has always been powered by a grassroots movement, not Washington. — Jason Miller (@JasonMillerinDC) October 10, 2016

 And in an interview Monday, former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a close ally of Trump’s, said his performance would make it more difficult for Republicans to abandon him. “They’ve really raised the ante on Republicans who want to cut and run,” he said. “How can you have watched that debate without knowing he won?”

 [After distancing himself from Trump, Pence returns to defending him]

 Some Republican lawmakers, such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.), questioned during the conference call Monday why GOP leaders hesitate to back Trump, citing Clinton’s weakness as a candidate.

 In an email Monday, Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong said that “there is no update on [the speaker’s] position at this time” in regards to endorsing Trump. But she added, “The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities.”

 In withdrawing his public support from Trump, Ryan is essentially giving other Republican lawmakers license to do the same if they oppose Trump’s statements and are concerned about their reelection chances. After the 2005 video emerged, Ryan said he was “disgusted” by Trump’s comments but did not withdraw his support.

 “You all need to do what’s best for you and your district,” Ryan said on the conference call, according to two participants who spoke anonymously because of the private nature of the call.

 With this move, Ryan at least partially joined a growing group of high-profile Republican lawmakers who have renounced their support of Trump following the disclosure Friday by The Post of an 11-year-old videotape of the businessman talking casually about kissing and groping women. That group includes Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and John McCain (Ariz.), both in tough reelection races, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah).

 Republicans who participated in the post-debate conference call Monday morning are becoming increasingly worried about their chances of holding on to their 30-seat House majority as Trump lags dangerously behind Clinton in the polls. One described the tone of the call as “nervous.”

 An NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey released Monday showed Trump taking a big dip after the release of the videotape, with Clinton leading Trump by double digits among likely voters, 46 percent to 35 percent, in a four-way contest. Democrats had a seven-point lead on the question of which party voters would like to see control Congress.

 Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the House GOP campaign arm, briefed lawmakers on the House battlegrounds, warning that the “ground is shifting,” according to a lawmaker on the call. Walden said that Republicans should continue to poll their races and that winning would be equivalent to “landing an airplane in a hurricane: You have to trust the instruments.”

 The speaker plans to spend the next month, he told lawmakers on the conference call, “only campaigning for House seats and not . . . to promote or defend Trump,” according to a GOP lawmaker. Ryan plans to campaign in 17 states and 42 cities in October to help preserve his majority.

 One member who spoke out during the call — Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), a low-key lawmaker who represents struggling industrial areas along the eastern Ohio River — issued a statement late Monday saying he would “continue to support the top of our Republican ticket” while also saying he would “continue to admire and support Speaker Ryan’s leadership in a very challenging time.”

 “I am a husband, father of two daughters, and I have four granddaughters,” he said. “And, while I find Donald Trump’s locker room comments from ten years ago offensive, indefensible and regrettable, they don’t change the fact that Hillary Clinton has proven she’ll put personal politics over our national security.

 [Ryan embarks on whirlwind tour to help save his majority]

 The House GOP call was an opportunity for members to check in after a chaotic weekend in which dozens of GOP lawmakers revoked their support for Trump after the release of the video. Lawmakers spent the weekend fielding a barrage of questions about their support for Trump, without any formal guidance from party leaders.

 Ryan typically holds weekly sessions for his members, referring to the confabs as “family meetings” where members are invited to speak their minds. The meetings have become a mainstay for a House GOP that has been plagued by infighting and crises for more than a year.

 Pence made his first campaign appearance since news of the videotape had broken, telling a group in Charlotte on Monday that it had been “an interesting few days.” He lauded Trump for apologizing during the debate for his vulgar remarks about forcing himself on women in 2005.

 “It takes a big man to know when he’s wrong and admit it,” said Pence, adding, “Donald Trump last night showed that he’s a big man.”

 The governor also brought up his Christian faith in his explanation of why he continues to stand by Trump, saying he believes in “grace” and “forgiveness.”

 Pence made a similar pitch Monday while speaking on Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends,” even as he made clear that his former colleagues in Congress should remember that voters, rather than elected officials, will determine who succeeds President Obama.

 “My hope is that people across the country, including elected officials, believe in redemption as much as I do,” he said. “I’m happy to talk to any of my friends in leadership. But really, this election is really in the hands of the American people.”

 Democrats suggested that any effort by Republicans to distance themselves from their nominee at this point in the race would not shield them from the repercussions of his candidacy this fall.

 “I understand why they’re doing that, but Paul Ryan and other leaders in the Republican Party — there was a time where they could have spoken out. That time was this summer. And obviously it’s too late now,” Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri told reporters aboard the campaign’s plane Monday while en route to Detroit. “Somewhat of a civil war is breaking out in the Republican Party, but I think that Donald Trump didn’t become the nominee of his party on his own. These leaders help legitimize him and I think they have a lot to answer for, and the voters, I imagine, will hold them accountable.”

 And even as the actions Trump described in the 2005 videotape continued to spark renewed controversy this week, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told a reporter from the Weekly Standard that when it came to Trump’s allusions to forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by their genitals, ” I don’t characterize that as sexual assault.”

 After someone tweeted in response that Sessions’s comments were akin to when then-Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) torpedoed his 2012 Senate bid to unseat Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) by referring to “legitimate rape,” McCaskill said that was “not fair to Todd Akin.”

 That’s not fair to Todd Akin. No comparison. This much worse. https://t.co/3a9EYqkoKT — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) October 10, 2016

 Paul Kane in Washington, Philip Rucker in St. Louis, Sean Sullivan in Charlotte and John Wagner in Detroit contributed to this report.

Summary: – Sen. John McCain has dropped his endorsement for Donald Trump, as have several dozen other prominent GOPers, in the wake of Trump's "hot mic" 2005 tape that leaked Friday. But House Speaker Paul Ryan is still hanging in there, though he now says Trump can't count on him for much help through the rest of the election. Politico reports that in a Monday morning conference call, Ryan told fellow Republican lawmakers he "won't defend Trump" or show up at any campaign events with him leading up to Election Day. Instead, he's choosing to set his sights on other matters. "The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities," his spokeswoman said in a statement, per the Washington Post. "You all need to do what's best for you and your district," the Post source says Ryan told lawmakers in his call. And it's a real concern: A national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday shows Dems now have a 7-point lead on congressional preference, CNBC reports. But amid rumors that Ryan is thinking of pulling his endorsement entirely, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway appeared on CBS This Morning on Monday, saying, "I certainly hope Speaker Ryan keeps his word and his endorsement of Donald Trump," per Politico. As for those lawmakers who've already withdrawn their support, Trump doesn't have much hope for them in their own races. "So many self-righteous hypocrites. Watch their poll numbers—and elections—go down!" he tweeted Sunday before the debate.