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.

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).

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.

Dies ist der Weg.

Ich finde bei diesen Tassen/Bechern ist das vorwärmen für Espressi auch nicht mehr nötig.

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water”, but that does not tell you much, as these are not scientists with independent studies and manufacturers usually do not publish their full internal testing methods.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.