The caffeine content was on the label but rather small for such an extreme amount. Additionally, it was not put in relation to anything for 2 of the 3 lemonades, they only wrote the coffeine content in milligram, very few people can relate to this information without looking it other drinks.
For one of them, it claimed to be in similar strength as their coffee, which was a lie according to the lawsuit, as their coffee has "normal" coffeine content.
Did anyone have access to the original publication and can tell me, if they explain how they determined it being the first study and what other liquids have been used before in studies? The Guardian article only says "Manufacturers have traditionally used saline or water", but that does not tell you much, as these are not scientists with independent studies and manufacturers usually do not publish their full internal testing methods.
I only have access to its abstract and curiously it does not mention it being the first published study with actual blood, so the authors themselves did not find it very noteworthy.
I can easily imagine, that a published, standardized, reproducible (model) menstrual fluid for such an analysis does not exist yet, but I am not that involved in medical publishing. If this is the case, that would be really infuriating. It might exist as some vendors sell artificial menstrual fluid.
I have rechecked the image and the coffee comparison was for 2 out of 3.
You are right, that the concentration of the caffeine was as high as it is in a normal cup of coffee. But the caffeine content was given as an absolute value not as a concentration, so it was misleading. But you are right, it was not a lie.
Their text can be easily interpreted as an comparisons of the large or small lemonade with a large or small cup of coffee. Which is not an unreasonable thought, as 30 oz of Cola has roughly the same amount of coffeine (83 mg) as 1 cup of coffee (96 mg, according to Mayo Clinic).
Even that is a very American way of thinking. The number of gun shot wounds a police officer sees in the US is way higher than in comparable European countries.
I could not find exact data for wounds, but if you take gun fatalities as placeholder (I am sure they are connected) here:
You can see that precovid (2019) in the US there were 63x more gun fatalities than in Germany per person. In an average 1 million person city the police in the US has to deal with about 32 gun fatalities. In Germany that city has 1 every other year, in Australia it is 1-2 every year.
While the fictional US police department has every two weeks one or more fatality, the fictional German and Australian see it once a year.
So the frequency of it occuring and it being written about is way higher in the US than in comparable countries.
(Of course the comparing the amount of firearm fatalities between countries is not an exact replacement for gun shot wounds, but it should be close)
Yes, the original roman ones. This is the origin of the word. They were appointed for emergencies with a lot of power.
They all gave up their position after a while except for Caesar. When Caesar was appointed as a lifelong dictator, he was shortly after assassinated by most members of the senate. But the turmoil led to the Roman Empire not being "democratic" anyway.