The White House says China's proposal to abolish presidential term limits a move that could make Xi Jinping president for life is an internal matter for Beijing. "I believe that's a decision for China to make about what's best for their country," press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a Monday press briefing. Term limits, Sanders said, are something Trump "supports here in the United States, but that's a decision that would be up to China." The Chinese Communist Party proposed removing the presidential two-term limit from China's constitution, state media reported Sunday. The move would be a further consolidation of power for Xi, who is already seen as one of China's most powerful leaders in decades. On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump praised Xi, saying he has a "very good relationship" and "great respect" for the Chinese leader. "I think that President Xi is unique. He's helping us with North Korea," Trump said during a White House meeting with U.S. governors. Trump has not specifically addressed the issue of China removing term limits. To some, Sanders' comments are the latest evidence of a break in the long-standing U.S. tradition of encouraging democracy in China, and reflect an unwillingness to criticize undemocratic regimes. "In effect, she is saying that the U.S. is OK with Xi Jinping simply asserting that he will remain in power indefinitely," said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. "Does she realize China isn't a democracy?" During the presidential campaign, Trump regularly slammed China and its trade policies. But since becoming president, Trump has toned down the criticism. Instead, Trump has prioritized working with China to address North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. However, several reports suggest the White House could soon announce trade decisions, such as tariffs on Chinese imports, that could strain the U.S.-China relationship. Question: Sarah Sanders probably believes === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- China is acting in its own interest
- not enough information
- China is not really helpful with North Korea
- Xi wants to give up power
China is acting in its own interest

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... Question: What vitamin did the researchers note about the elderly people that gave them benefits? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- glucosamine
- selenium
- vitamin D
- not enough information

Answer: vitamin D

I repeatedly see people asking advice on forums as to which is the best detox to do. Whenever I see this question I want to scream at the person 'no, don't do it. It is a waste of your time and money'...but I don't. I don't want to cause a scene, or start a barrage of backlash from people claiming that it worked for them. Instead, I will present the facts and let you decide for yourself if it is worth doing. Before I start, I just want to clarify that when I am referring to detox I mean the ones that you buy where you have to take a million various tablets a day and stick to a very restricted diet. If you are going to 'detox' by simply eating healthily then all power to you. That will most definitely do wonders for your body. These detox kits won't. They will produce results; however, the results will be temporary. Why detoxes don't work Firstly, the companies who are marketing the detoxes talk about removing toxins that have built up in the body. So, what are these toxins? They don't say. They remain vague and just leave you to let your imagination run wild. Do they mean chemicals, waste products from digestion, bacteria? I guess I imagined it as the waste products from digestion but it would be interesting to hear what other people perceive as the 'toxins' in their bodies. I read an interesting article on British Beauty Blogger about how Veet gave Chinese women a problem they never had. Chinese women naturally have very little body hair so hair removal products have always been poor sellers. Therefore, Reckitt Benckiser (who own Veet) devised a marketing campaign to convince Chinese that any body hair is unsightly and released ads equating hair free skin with health, confidence and "shining glory" (the full marketing concept can be read here). I feel that this is the same as what is happening in regards to detoxes. The marketers of the products have convinced us that our bodies are full of these so called 'toxins', from our unhealthy lifestyles, that need to be removed with a detox. Question: What will be the likely result of marketers convincing people that they are full of toxins? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- people will become healthier
- people will eat more junk food
- people will buy detox products
- not enough information
people will buy detox products