WHITE HOUSE A debate over patriotism and the right of free expression is continuing in the United States with President Donald Trump extending his criticism of professional athletes who decline to stand for the national anthem. The controversy was on display Tuesday afternoon on the White House South Lawn, where Trump briefly presided over a quickly reformatted celebration after his administration accused America's champion professional football team of attempting to turn the event into a "political stunt." Trump the previous day had disinvited the Philadelphia Eagles from what was to be a celebration of their Super Bowl victory. Many of the Eagles' players had indicated they would not attend in response to Trump's harsh criticism of athletes who have refused to stand during pregame performances of the national anthem even though all the Eagles stood for the anthem last season. Trump relabeled Tuesday's gathering as a "celebration of the American flag." Speaking for 3 minutes, he told flag-waving invited fans of the team that he wanted to explain why "young Americans stand for a national anthem. Maybe it's about time we understood." One attendee shouted at the president to "stop hiding behind the armed services and the national anthem." That prompted booing and the man was escorted from the event. Trump concluded by saying that the celebration turned out to be "even bigger than we anticipated" had the football players attended. Media reports said as few as five to 10 players had planned to attend Tuesday's event. "The vast majority of the Eagles team decided to abandon their fans," the White House said in a statement Tuesday. "The Eagles are the ones who tried to change their commitment at the 11th hour," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters just prior to the event. "If this wasn't a political stunt by the Eagles franchise, then they wouldn't have planned to attend the event and then backed out at the last minute." A White House statement said Trump withdrew the invitation "after... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who did Trump disinvite from a celebration of their Super Bowl victory? Options: - not enough information - The Washington Redskins - The New Orleans Saints - The Philadelphia Eagles
The Philadelphia Eagles

I am currently waiting for peer reviews of two books I've worked on: one sole-authored, one co-authored. We don't talk much about the experience of waiting for reviews, and it's not something that appears to have been researched. Yet it's something everyone doing academic work has to go through and it may be bad for our mental health. I'm finding it particularly difficult at the moment because a lot rides on these reviews. The sole-authored book, which is on a contentious topic, has already had one set of reviews. Reviewer 1 was utterly damning, saying "I couldn't find anything to praise". Luckily, Reviewers 2 and 3 were more measured, offering both praise and constructive criticism, and their input helped me to revise and strengthen the typescript. However, in the process, my editor and I realised that we needed further reviews from people with a particular kind of specialist knowledge. My editor approached around ten potential reviewers, but only one agreed to do the job. So I'm gibbering what if that person agrees with Reviewer 1? The co-authored book is in a contentious format. My co-authors and I decided that I would be the person to liaise with publishers, as I have form in this process. The last time I liaised with academic publishers for a co-authored book was in the early 2000s, and I'd forgotten how heavily responsible it makes me feel. Fortunately, I've found a publisher that is interested and has sent the book out for reviews, to two professional academics and two students. This is great and terrifying but at least there are four reviewers. Even so, what if they all think it's rubbish? In many ways I love the peer review system. I welcome feedback on my writing, and I'm not at all averse to constructive criticism. I am by no means arrogant enough to think I can write a good book without input from others. Yet peer review, as a process, is fraught with uncertainty. Comments may not be constructive, or may not come at all. They may be positive, or negative, or in between, or a mixture. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who did the author and their co-authors decide that they should liaise with? Options: - not enough information - editors - reviewers - publishers
publishers

*Question*
Dietary supplements are big business, with around half of the Australian population using at least one type per year; most commonly a multivitamin and mineral pill. Many people take supplements as a form of dietary insurance in case they are not meeting their nutrient needs from foods alone. Others take them as a form of health insurance to protect against certain diseases. Some just take them out of habit. Supplements do have a role to play in some situations. People with a diagnosed deficiency, those with malabsorption conditions, women planning pregnancy, and people with very poor diets all can benefit from specific nutrient supplementation. But what about the benefit of supplements across the broad population? The mantra of most health professionals, which is even etched on the label of many supplements, is that supplements may only be of assistance if dietary sources are lacking. To see if this is supported by solid evidence, a systematic review of 63 clinical trials involving some form of supplementation in non-pregnant adults was carried out by a team of medical researchers. The clinical trials were broad in their nature with many nutrients studied including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D and E; folic acid; calcium; selenium, omega-3 fatty acids; ginkgo biloba; glucosamine; saw palmetto; and milk thistle. All of the studies were randomised controlled trials and evaluated a range of health outcomes including risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive function and all-cause mortality. From the 63 studies, no benefit was seen in 45 studies with 10 of these showing a trend towards harm and just two showing a trend towards a benefit. Of the remaining studies, four showed harm with a greater risk of cancer with beta-carotene and a higher risk of fractures with a once-yearly dose of vitamin D. One study showed a lower risk of cancer with selenium supplementation, but this was not validated in much larger trials. Twelve studies showed a benefit and these mostly involved vitamin D... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How long or often are supplements expected to be taken? Options: - Monthly - not enough information - when diseased - Frequently
**Answer**
Frequently