“Ice cream 'could be as addictive as cocaine',” reported the Daily Mail. In a bid to scoop its rivals, the newspaper claimed that new research had whipped up “concerns that the dessert could be genuinely addictive”.
It’s not clear who exactly had these chilling “concerns” over the possible addictive qualities of the frozen snack, but the study in question looked at measures of brain activity in 151 teenagers while they drank an ice cream milkshake. During the scans, teenagers who had frequently eaten ice cream over the past two weeks showed less activity in the “reward areas” of the brain that give pleasurable sensations. This reduced reward sensation was reported to be similar to what is seen in drug addiction as users become desensitised to drugs.
It should be noted that the study included only healthy teenagers of normal weight, and its results may not represent overweight or older people. It also only tested one food, so the results may not apply to other foods.
Unsurprisingly, the study did not directly compare brain responses to or cravings for ice cream with those for illegal drugs. Therefore, while some aspects of the brain’s response may be similar, it is not correct to say that this study has found that ice cream is “as addictive” as illegal drugs.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the Oregon Research Institute in the US. Sources of funding were not clear. The study was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The newspapers focused on the suggestion that ice cream is “as addictive” as drugs. However, it is not possible to conclude this from the study.
What kind of research was this?
This experimental study looked at whether regularly eating ice cream reduces the brain’s pleasurable “reward” response. When we do things that support our survival, such as eating and drinking, the brain gives us a pleasurable reward sensation, reinforcing this behaviour and encouraging it in future. A similar process is also believed to occur in drug addiction, where a person’s reward response to the drug decreases with repeated exposure, leading to a need to take more of the drug.
The researchers reported that people who are obese experience less of a response to food in the reward centres of the brain, which may contribute to over-eating. Repeatedly eating foods with high levels of calories (called “energy dense” foods has also been shown to lead to brain changes that reduce reward response in rats. The researchers wanted to see if a similar thing happens in humans, by looking at whether regularly eating ice cream reduces the brain’s pleasurable reward response to an ice cream milkshake.
What did the research involve?
The researchers recruited 151 adolescent volunteers who were not overweight. They asked them how often they ate ice cream, and carried out brain scans while they drank either a tasteless solution or an ice cream milkshake. They then looked at whether the volunteers who ate ice cream frequently showed less brain activity in the reward centres of the brain when drinking the ice cream milkshake.
The study excluded any individuals who were overweight or had reported binge eating in the past three months, as well as any who had used illegal drugs, took certain medications, had a head injury or a mental health diagnosis in the last year. The volunteers completed standard food questionnaires about their eating habits over the past two weeks, including how often they ate ice cream. They also answered questions about food cravings and how much they liked certain foods, including ice cream. The volunteers also had their weight, height and body fat measured.
Volunteers were asked to eat their meals as usual but not to eat anything for five hours before the brain scan. The researchers then gave them either a sip of chocolate ice cream milkshake or a tasteless solution, and monitored the activity in their brain. Each participant received both drinks in a randomised order. The researchers then looked at what happened in the brain during each drink, and whether this varied depending on how much ice cream the volunteer usually ate. They also looked at whether body fat or energy intake from other foods influenced the response.
What were the basic results?
The researchers found that when the volunteers drank the ice cream milkshake, it activated the parts of the brain involved in giving a pleasurable “reward” feeling. Volunteers who ate ice cream frequently showed less activity in these pleasurable reward areas in response to the milkshake. Percentage of body fat, total energy intake, percentage of energy from fat and sugar, and intake of other energy-dense foods were not related to the level of reward response to the milkshake.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that their findings show that frequent consumption of ice cream reduces the “reward” response in the brain to eating the food. They reported that a similar process is seen in drug addiction.
The researchers also said that understanding these sorts of processes could help us understand how changes in the brain may contribute to, and help maintain, obesity.
Conclusion
This brain-scanning study suggests that the brain’s pleasurable reward response to ice cream decreases if it is eaten frequently. There are some points to note:
- The study only included healthy adolescents who were not overweight. Its results may not be representative of overweight or older individuals.
- The study only tested one food, so the results may not apply to other foods.
- Volunteers’ eating habits were only assessed for the past two weeks, and these may not be representative of their long-term eating habits.
- The study did not look at any other food with a discernable taste, only a “tasteless liquid”. It would have been interesting to see whether the reward response with tasting other foods, including less energy dense foods, also diminished over time.
- News reports of this research have claimed that this study shows that ice cream is “as addictive” as illegal drugs, but this is not the case. While the reduced brain reward seen with frequent ice cream eating was reportedly similar to that seen in the use of addictive drugs, the study unsurprisingly did not directly compare brain responses to ice cream and illegal drugs, or their addictive potential.
Analysis by Bazian
Links To The Headlines
Ice cream 'could be as addictive as cocaine', as researchers reveal cravings for the two are similar. Daily Mail, March 5 2012
Ice cream as 'addictive as drugs' says new study. The Daily Telegraph, March 5 2012
Links To Science
Burger KS and Stice E. Frequent ice cream consumption is associated with reduced striatal response to receipt of an ice cream–based milkshake. First published February 15 2012
FROM THE ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT
Greece's austerity measures are once again hitting the country's pharma industry, as cost-containment tightens.The pain is far from over for pharma companies in Greece, as new cost-containment measures for the sector come into force. As part of its efforts to cut spending in the wake of its latest EU bailout, parliament has passed a new law limiting drug spending by the country's social insurance funds to ˆ2.88bn (US$3.8bn this year. The industry itself will be liable for any overspend.
The new law also makes it a criminal offence for doctors to prescribe drugs by brand rather than generic name. This draconian measure will apply to the top ten therapeutic classes from April 1st, and then to all drugs on the reimbursement list from June 1st. The country's reimbursement scheme will only cover the generic cost, with any additional cost to be covered by the patient. In addition, doctors will be fined if they fail to prescribe via the new electronic prescription system, while pharmacy opening hours will be extended.
The aim of these measures is to slice ˆ1bn off the country's drugs bill this year.
In December 2011, while Greece was negotiating its latest bailout, the EU and IMF reportedly asked for drug spending to be reduced to 1% of GDP. The Greek National Organisation for Medicines declared this goal was unrealistic. If the latest measures do succeed in cutting spend to ˆ2.88bn, then that will amount of around 1.4% of Greece's projected ˆ199bn in GDP this year.The government also wants to raise the market share of generic drugs, which is currently one of the lowest in Europe at around 16% by volume in 2009, according to the
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations . Critics attribute this low share to the minimal difference between generic and branded drug prices, as well as incentives in the pharmacy sector which favoured more expensive drugs. The government has already moved to limit pharmacy profit margins to a flat fee, a measure that is expected to cut the number of pharmacies by 30% over the next few years.These and other measures have already proved highly controversial. In May 2010, in the wake of previous austerity measures, pharma prices were cut by a weighted average of 21.5%, prompting protests from pharmaceutical producers. Two Danish pharmaceutical companies, Novo Nordisk and Leo Pharma, withdrew a number of their products from the Greek market (they reversed this action only after the government eased the price-cuts slightly .
Despite this, the government introduced a new referencing pricing system in September aligning Greek prices with the average of the three lowest-priced EU countries. The effect was to cut prices by a further 20%.
As a result, Greece now has some of the lowest pharma prices in Europe, a fact that has prompted a huge parallel trade with other EU markets. Moreover, many hospitals have failed to pay for the drugs they have received, with debts to pharma companies deepening every month.This latest announcement will lead to more controversy and further deter launches in the pharma sector. The government is clearly prepared for that, however. According to Pharma Times, ministers have in any case been contemplating banning new drug launches until such drugs have been accepted for reimbursement in 8-10 other EU countries. Though that measure would probably exclude cancer drugs, the main losers would be Greek patients.
Drug legalization in Central America merits a “serious” debate as a solution to the crime and violence coursing through the region even if it runs up against U.S. opposition, said Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla.
“If we keep doing what we have been when the results today are worse than 10 years ago, we’ll never get anywhere and could wind up like Mexico or Colombia,” Chinchilla said yesterday in an interview in San Jose.
On February 29, a federal district court judge issued an
Order requiring that Cardinal Health, Inc. comply with an Immediate Suspension Order ("ISO" issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA" . The court previously granted a temporary restraining order delaying Cardinal's compliance with the ISO, pending a decision on a preliminary injunction requested by Cardinal. However, the Court denied this preliminary injunction in its Order. Cardinal
appealed this decision on the same day as the court's Order.
Partially at issue in this dispute is the question of who is responsible for stopping diversion, a form of illegal sales of controlled drug substances. Diversion is distributing controlled drug substances to an entity without a valid DEA registration. In this case, diversion of the prescription pain killer oxycodone allegedly took place at pharmacies supplied by Cardinal's Lakeland, Florida distribution facility. Cardinal states that it has a system in place to stop diversion and that it is ready and willing to suspend shipments to any pharmacy that the DEA identifies as likely to be engaged in diversion. The DEA, however, states that the Lakeland facility has a continuing, affirmative obligation to police its retail customers to ensure that the controlled drug substances it provides are not being unlawfully diverted--and the Lakeland facility fell short of its legal and contractual obligations.
According to a
Complaint filed by Cardinal, the ISO requires the Lakeland facility to immediately halt shipments of all controlled drug substances to about 2,700 pharmacies, hospitals, and other customers to prevent alleged imminent danger to the public health or safety. Notably, only Cardinal's Lakeland facility is subject to the ISO. The DEA, however, does not allege that Cardinal itself distributed controlled drug substances to any entity not permitted to purchase them. Instead, the ISO was issued because four pharmacies that were supplied by the Lakeland facility have allegedly distributed oxycodone for illegitimate uses.
Lindsay Lohan's "Saturday Night Live" performance may not have been Emmy-worthy, but her efforts on the show could be the baby steps she needs to repair her long-tarnished brand.
"She showed that she wants to work again," Cooper Lawrence,
author of "Cult of Celebrity" told The Huffington Post. "She was relaxed, confident and professional. She may not have been funny the whole time, but she did show up, seemed sober and did not come off like a drug addict pulling the wool over our eyes. I was left with the feeling that she may be tired of being the punch line."
Lohan
received mixed reviews for her work on "SNL" this weekend, where she was quick to lampoon her past legal troubles and made light of the fact that she is often less than reliable, but she still wasn't able to pull off the kind of top-notch performance she proved she was capable of years ago when she hosted the show.
Still, following years of personal ups and downs and a handful of cancelled movie projects, simply not failing at the task put before her was enough for Lohan to start creeping her way back into the market as an actress, not a pin-up or a punchline.
"She was sober and knew that the critics would come down on her," said Hollywood publicist Michael Sands. "With her legal woes behind her ... perhaps she will take some acting classes and surprise us all."
"Do not count Lindsay out yet," he added.
However, not all critics were convinced that this weekend's show made the actress more viable as a real Hollywood player.
"Unless she's angling for a role as a not-terribly-adroit cue-card reader, or perhaps a sleepwalker, Lindsay Lohan didn't do her career any favors by hosting 'SNL,'" said April Bernard, the senior television editor for
Us Weekly
. "Referencing past successes such as a?˜Mean Girls,' as she did in one sketch, only reminded viewers how appealing she used to be. If she'd shown half the spark and talent that Maya Rudolph or Melissa McCarthy did this season, people would be talking about her comeback."
Love it or hate it, "SNL" was at least a minor step toward redemption for Lohan's brand --
a high-rated one at that-- but industry authorities believe it will take more than a few funny skits at her own expense to convince producers to take a chance on her as an actress again.
"Lohan's current brand rehabilitation tour -- including stops along the 'SNL' and 'Today' show highway -- have been orchestrated effectively but they hardly wipe away the memory of years of news coverage focused on her addictions, court appearances and her arrogance," said Mark Stevens,
author of "Your Marketing Sucks."
"There's always room for human redemption," he added, referencing former President Bill Clinton's rise from scandal. "But the directors and producers who hired her in the past still aren't going to be hiring Lindsay Lohan for the time being."
Head over here to see some of Lohan's "SNL" skits from the weekend.
Could it be the "messenger" -- typically federal and state agencies and public health officials?
A clue to that possibility surfaced in
a recent study, "Motivation for Unpasteurized Milk Consumption in Michigan, 2011," by Paul Bartlett and Angela Renee Katafiasz, of Michigan State University, which appeared in a recent issue of "Food Protection Trends."
In an email to Food Safety News, Bartlett said that what surprised him the most about the results of the survey of raw-milk drinkers was that such a small percentage of them trusted public health officials regarding what food is safe to eat.
Only 4 (or 7.1 percent of the 56 raw-milk consumers who responded to the study's questionnaire agreed with a statement that "in general, they trusted recommendations made by state health officials about what foods are safe to eat." Another 10 (or 17.9 percent indicated they didn't agree with the statement, while another 41 (or 73.2 percent said they weren't sure.
"This lack of trust," says the study, "casts doubt on whether or not consumer education by local or state health departments would be effective in preventing milk-borne disease due to raw-milk consumption."
None of this surprises Mark McAfee, the outspoken co-owner of California-based
Organic Pastures, the nation's largest raw-milk producer. In an email to Food Safety News, McAfee said he has always thought that any area where raw milk is sold should have a huge ultra-red pink sign that says something like: "The FDA says raw milk is dangerous because it has not been processed."
"If that were the case," he said, "sales would skyrocket. No one trusts the Food and Drug Administration or its propaganda."
McAfee said the problem is that "state and federal agencies have cried wolf so many times against raw milk that now any cries that might be an honest attempt to warn of the rare incidence of illness is ignored as hatred against all things FDA."
FDA comes into the picture because the agency doesn't allow raw milk sold for human consumption to be transported across state lines.
That same skepticism about what public health officials and agencies have to say about raw milk kept surfacing in the recent Michigan study. When asked if raw milk should be regulated by the government to ensure quality standards, 27 (or 48.2 percent of the respondents disagreed, while only 9 (or 16.1 percent agreed. Another 17 (or 30.4 percent said they weren't sure.
Along those same lines, some of the raw milk consumers in the study said they generally believe that their producers maintain a higher standard of animal care and cleanliness than does the mainstream dairy industry.
The respondents also took issue with some of the survey's other statements, once again revealing sharp differences of opinion with official government views on the potential health hazards of drinking raw milk. For example, when asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that "Drinking raw milk increases your risk of getting a foodborne disease," an average of 44 (or 78.6 percent disagreed. Only 6 respondents agreed with the statement, and another 5 (or 8.9 percent of the respondents said they weren't sure. In Februrary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
released a study showing that the rate of disease outbreaks linked to raw milk was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.
In 2010, Michigan had two
Campylobacter foodborne outbreaks associated with raw milk. And last year, 3 probable cases of
Q-fever were reported in people who participated in raw-milk cow-share arrangements, which according to the report, were presumably caused by drinking raw milk. Back in 1947, Michigan became the first state to require that all milk for sale be pasteurized. As such, the sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal in that state. However cow- and goat-share agreements in which people buy a share of a herd and are therefore considered owners of the milk from the herd are permitted through an informal agreement on the part of the state.
Profile of a raw-milk drinker
The Michigan study starts off by acknowledging that "it is largely unknown why some consumers prefer raw milk over pasteurized milk."
As such, one of the goals of the peer-reviewed study was to come up with a some sort of profile of raw-milk drinkers in Michigan and from there, to summarize their reasons for preferring raw milk to pasteurized milk.
The profile that emerged was a well-educated adult in his/her late 20s who typically lives in a rural area. Overall, the ages of the raw-milk drinkers, which included family members, ranged from less than one year to 75.
The profile, which, co-author Bartlett readily says is limited due to the small number of raw-milk drinkers surveyed, contrasts starkly with a profile of raw-milk drinkers in California that emerged in an earlier report, "
Profile of Raw Milk Consumers."
Authored primarily by scientists then at FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the report analyzed responses to questions in the 1994 California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey that asked respondents about whether they drank raw milk, the amount consumed, the reason for drinking raw milk, and where raw milk was most often obtained.
The researchers found that among the 3,999 survey respondents, 128 (about 3.2 percent reported drinking raw milk the previous year. These raw-milk consumers were more likely that those who didn't drink raw milk to be younger than 40, male, Hispanic and to have less than a high school education.
However, these survey results included any responder who had drunk raw milk in the previous year no matter how much or how little.
One of the conclusions of the California report was that additional research is needed to further refine the profile of raw milk drinkers and determine their risk of adverse effects from drinking raw milk.
The report also said that "Although the role of raw milk as a vehicle in disease transmission has been well-documented, information regarding the prevalence of raw-milk consumption in sparse."
Estimates of the percentage of milk drinkers who drink raw milk range from 1 to 3 percent of the U.S. population, although no one knows for sure since it's too difficult to track the information.
Organic Pastures McAfee was happy to share some information about his raw-milk customers, based on informal studies and polls conducted by the dairy. What surfaces is that 50 percent of the dairy's raw-milk customers are well-educated moms between 20 and 45 years old. The rest of the dairy's raw-milk customers are what McAfee describes as "being all over the place" and can be anyone: young, old, fat, skinny, gay, straight, religious, agnostic, healthy, sick, abandoned by doctors, not wanting to go to doctors, Eastern Bloc immigrants, left wingers, right wingers, no wingers, Tea Party members, and homeschoolers.
"It is everyone," he said.
Why raw milk?
Supporting local farms topped the list of the reasons the Michigan raw-milk survey respondents gave for preferring raw milk, with 48 (or 85.7 of them citing that as a reason. Next came taste, with 47 (or 83.9 percent giving that as a reason. "Holistic health benefits" were cited by 43 (or 76.8 percent of the respondents. Thirty-two respondents (or 57.1 percent said they don't feel processed milk is safe. A majority of the study's raw-milk drinkers shared their beliefs that raw milk was beneficial for relieving digestive problems, intestinal diseases and allergies. Some said they believe raw milk is beneficial for heart disease, neurologic disease, acne, and cancer. Others shared anecdotal claims that when they drink pasteurized milk, they experience symptoms of lactose intolerance, which they said doesn't happen when they drink unpasteurized milk. People with lactose intolerance have a hard time digesting lactose, which is a type of natural sugar found in milk and dairy products. The intolerance occurs when the small intestine doesn't make enough of the enzyme, lactase, which is needed to break down or digest lactose. Symptoms include gas, belly pain, and bloating.
However, a
study out of Stanford Medical School (financed by raw milk advocates not only raised questions about how widespread lactose intolerance really is, but found that raw milk did not confer any benefit over pasteurized milk in relieving symptoms of lactose intolerance. Health authorities say that no matter what benefits might be associated anecdotally with raw milk, the risk of contracting a foodborne disease such as E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter or Listeria infection outweighs any of the unproven benefits. They point out that if harmful microorganisms from cow excrement contaminates the raw milk, those drinking it can come down with serious digestive problems, kidney failure, or even death.
In California, labels on raw-milk containers must say: "Raw (unpasteurized milk and raw milk dairy products may contain disease-causing micro-organisms. Persons at highest risk of disease from these organisms include newborns and infants; the elderly; pregnant women; those taking corticosteroids, antibiotics or antacids; and those having chronic illnesses or other conditions that weaken their immunity." The Michigan study also revealed that the average number of years the respondents have been drinking raw milk is 6.1 and that 92 percent of the milk the respondents' families drink is raw milk.
A commitment to purchasing raw milk can be seen in the average number of miles a respondent travels out of his or her way to buy raw milk: 24.2 miles. The average number of pickups of raw milk each month was 4.1.
The study
Questionnaires were sent out to raw-milk producers, 20 of whom agreed to participate in the study. The producers, in turn, were sent survey questions, which they forwarded on to their cow- or goat-share members. Of the 160 questionnaires sent out, 56 were returned.
While the study has been criticized for being self-selecting in that it only questioned people who drink raw milk and biased because it started out with the assumption that it's potentially harmful to your health to drink raw milk, co-author Bartlett told Food Safety News that it was done "for the cost of postage" as a project for a 3-credit course. And, yes, he definitely would have liked to have had a higher response rate and a larger study.
He also pointed out that the hypothesized health benefits of raw milk are difficult to study because it would be unethical to randomly assign people to drink raw milk and others to drink pasteurized milk. Besides which, such a study could not be done blindly because the study subjects would certainly know if they were drinking raw or pasteurized milk (although the Stanford study effectively masked the taste differences with an added flavoring.
More information about raw milk can be found
here.
During the brief period when Jennifer Aniston shacked up with her boyfriend, Justin Theroux, in New York's West Village, the couple was reportedly hounded by paparazzi. At one point, it was even rumored that Justin's motorcycle had been covered in slices of Bologna. So we can hardly fault her for deciding to head back to the Left Coast, where celebs' privacy is protected by the gates on their mansions -- and off-street parking provides a safe harbor for their boyfriends' rides. "We tried New York," Jen tells People, but, "it felt like I was [living] in a fishbowl." A graduate of New York's LaGuardia High School of Music and Performing Arts, Jen adds that things have changed in the Big Apple since she last lived there. "Justin still has an apartment there," she says. "It was a little rough with the paparazzi. It didn't feel like the New York I grew up in and knew." Now that she's back in Los Angeles, however, the "Wanderlust" star says she's enjoying a "10-plus" happiness level and a Zen life. ( People
Just because Gwyneth Paltrow spends all her downtime searching for rare, overpriced species of Lacinato kale so GOOP readers have something tasty to tide them over between $400 GOOP cleanses, don't think she's unaware of how she comes off on her much-maligned blog. Gwynnie stopped by her chef-buddy Mario Batali's show, "The Chew," the other day, and managed to whip out a few zingers during the Celebrity Egg Timer segment. Asked when she had her last hangover, she nobly admitted, "after the Oscars." Asked what was the best thing her hubby, Chris Martin, ever cooked, she overshared, "Um, nothing." And finally, earning herself top marks in the self-deprecation category, she was asked what she'd call GOOP if it weren't called GOOP. Her reply? "SpoiledWhiteRichGirl.com." Touche, haters. ( Celebitchy RELATED: 2012 Oscar Afterparties
Attention, 11-year-old style mavens worldwide: Willow Smith wants you to express your individualism by sharing your dyed-green hair and tie-dye looks with like-minded 'tweens. Or, as she put it on her Instagram page alongside photos like this one of her verdant new hair-scape: "I am starting a LAGIT thingy with people around the world like @eeeeeeeeeeb ... Can share ALL of their styles... #uniqlook." The green 'do is Willow's third major hair change in as many weeks; in February, she shaved her head and later bleached what was left of her hair. ( JustJared RELATED: Very Bad Hair Day for Lindsay Lohan
We're not too surprised that Taylor Swift would want to cover up her black top with a colorful shawl in this tear sheet from the new Harper's Bazaar -- since the blouse underneath it is a design by her Grammy speech nemesis, Kanye West. Kissing and making up is just so much easier when a top fashion magazine is willing to pay you for it. ( Jezebel
When Pippa Middleton completed the Vasaloppet cross-country ski race in Sweden on Sunday, she was treated to a kiss -- from a total stranger. Almost as soon as Pippa crossed the finish line, student, part-time truck driver and event steward Erik Smedhs, rushed over to her and planted a wet one on the royal sister-in-law's flushed face. "For having been skiing for 56 miles she was surprisingly fresh," the audacious smoocher later told The Royalist. "I just thought it would be funny with all the commotion around her." His excuse for the bum-rush? "I told her that we have a tradition here in Mora when you reach the goal,and then I kissed her," he explained. "It actually is a tradition, but just for the winner of the race." Pippa came in at No. 421 in the women's section of the charity competition. ( DailyBeast
Kim Kardashian may have made $18 million off her 72-day marriage to Kris Humphries, but it looks like she won't be the only one to benefit from the short-lived union in the end. A letter was reportedly sent to each guest who attended Kim and Kris' wedding in which the bride explained that she would not be keeping any of the money she had been given as a gift. "I would like to thank you for your generous and thoughtful wedding gift," the letter reportedly said. "It has taken me some time to pull everything together but I wanted to let you know that the money for every gift received by me at my wedding has been donated to the Dream Foundation ..." A source confirms to Us that Kim donated twice the amount of money she received, putting hr check at about $200,000. According to its website, the charity focuses on "making dreams come true for adults facing life-threatening illness." ( TMZ RELATED: Did Kim Kardashian Diss Demi Moore Using a Devo Ditty?
As Brooke Mueller's legal team works on a plea deal related to her December drug and assault charges, the woman who was allegedly hit in the neck by Brooke at a club is complaining that Charlie Sheen's ex is getting off too easy. Despite being charged with felony possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and misdemeanor third degree assault, TMZ reports that Mueller will likely avoid jail time -- and Liana Little tells the site she's "furious." Little claims she bumped into Mueller in an Aspen, Colo., club, and the interaction led to a huge fight in which Mueller allegedly hit Little in the neck. Now Little wants to see Mueller go to jail. Mueller is expected to be sentenced at her next court date on April 2. ( TMZ
There's only one problem with Adele's new $11 million mansion that has two pools, 10 bedrooms and a tennis court: the ghosts. According to (an admittedly dubious new report from The Sun, the Grammy-winning singer is too freaked out by strange noises she hears in the night to sleep alone in her new digs. Instead, she's reportedly hired a female bodyguard as well as two new security staffers to help protect her from whatever creepiness may be lurking in the home, which was once a convent. ( NYPost RELATED: Adele: 'I'm Never Writing a Breakup Album Again'
No comments:
Post a Comment