MIL-OSI Export

ANALYSIS: By Andrew Brown

Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog, is due to arrive in Australia next Sunday. Why is a foreign Head of State asked to help heal an Australian community after an Australian tragedy?

Australia is being asked to accept something extraordinary as if it were normal.

Who invited Isaac Herzog in the first place, and why did Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese say yes? Presented to us not as diplomacy, not as geopolitics, not as a strategic signal, but as “healing”.

Before we swallow that story, one question needs to be put on the table and left there until someone answers it.

Where does this community’s allegiance align? Australia or Israel?

The visit is being sold as reassurance for Jewish Australians after the Bondi attack last December 14. And yet the reassurance on offer does not come from Australia at all.

It does not come from Australian civic leaders. It does not come from Australian law or Australian institutions. It does not come from Jewish Australian faith figures, nor even from Israeli rabbinical leaders rooted in this country and this community.

It comes instead from a foreign head of state, and that single choice does more than any speech. It quietly rewrites the relationship between citizenship, faith, and state power in Australia.

So ask the obvious questions. Who requested this visit? Who lobbied for it? Who thought it was wise to import a foreign political figure into the emotional aftermath of Bondi? And why did the Prime Minister say yes?

Why did Albanese say yes?
If the purpose is truly pastoral, then the choice makes no sense. The visitor is not a rabbi. Not a spiritual leader. Not an interfaith presence. Not a community counsellor.

He is an Israeli president. A political figure. The constitutional face of a foreign state. Politics, not pastoral care. Power, not solace.

That is the first truth we are being asked not to notice, but the second truth is even more uncomfortable.

For years, Australians have been hammered with a single instruction, delivered with the confidence of a moral rule. Judaism is a religion. Israel is a state. Zionism is a political ideology. Keep them separate. Do not conflate.

If you blur those lines, you will be accused of prejudice, sometimes fairly, sometimes strategically, but always loudly.

That instruction has been enforced through the culture. In media commentary. In parliamentary speeches. In complaints processes. In campaigns to delegitimise critics who would not repeat the approved formula with sufficient reverence.

Fine. If separation is the principle, then separation must hold when it matters most. Especially when grief is raw, and symbols do their sharpest work.

Separation is abandoned
But at the precise moment symbolism matters most, the separation is abandoned. Not by critics. Not by social media hotheads. By the state itself.

At a moment of Australian grief, it is not faith that is summoned. It is the Israeli state.

Its president is elevated as the symbolic consoler. Its presence is framed as essential to the healing of Jewish Australians.

This visit does not merely blur the line between Judaism and Israel. It erases it. Publicly. Institutionally. With government endorsement of inviting a man who, according to Labor Friends of Palestine, doesn’t pass the character test for a visa application:

1. “A person does not pass the character test if … the Minister reasonably suspects that the person has been or is involved in conduct constituting . . .  the crime of genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime, a crime involving torture or slavery or a crime that is otherwise of serious international concern; whether or not the person, or another person, has been convicted of an offence constituted by the conduct . . . ”
   
2. “A person does not pass the character test if . . .  in the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would . . . incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community . . . ’ 

— Migration Act 1958, Section 501

Judaism vs Israel
You cannot spend decades demanding that Australians keep Judaism and Israel separate, then place an Israeli head of state at the centre of an Australian tragedy and expect the public to maintain the fiction.

You cannot demand absolute separation when critics speak, then collapse that separation when power needs a stage.

That is not an oversight. It is a choice, and it leads to the real debate Australia has been pushed to avoid.

If Jewish Australians are Australians of Jewish faith, then their safety, grief, and belonging are matters for Australia to address. Australian law. Australian civic leadership. Australian institutions.

Or, if faith is the organising principle, rabbis and religious leaders who actually carry pastoral authority. They are not matters for a foreign head of state. Not for an overseas government inserting itself into an Australian tragedy.

The moment a foreign political leader is presented as necessary to healing, the issue stops being faith and becomes allegiance.

And allegiance is not some abstract thing in Australia. It is demanded constantly. Migrant communities are told, again and again, that Australia comes first. That loyalty must be singular. That old countries are left behind. That this nation, its laws, its institutions, and its flag are the sole point of civic attachment.

Except here, the rules bend. Here, the separation we are warned never to breach is breached from above. Here, the state quietly endorses the idea that

Jewish identity in Australia is incomplete without Israeli political authority standing behind it.

Divisive double standard
That is why this visit is divisive. Not because Australians lack compassion. Not because antisemitism is not real. It is real, and it should be crushed without hesitation.

The division comes from the double standard. The division comes from importing a foreign political symbol into Australian grief, then scolding Australians for noticing what that symbol implies.

And once Israel is positioned as the emotional guarantor of Jewish life in Australia, the logic runs further, whether anyone likes it or not.

Why does responsibility stop at speeches? Why does it end in symbolism?

Why is the Australian taxpayer funding security, policing, protective infrastructure, and now a full diplomatic visit, while the implication being advanced is that Jewish safety here is inseparable from the Israeli state?

If Israel is to be treated as the natural guardian, then why is Australia carrying the entire material cost?

The Prime Minister has not merely allowed a diplomatic courtesy. He has endorsed a narrative. One that collapses the very separation it claims to defend.

One that institutionalises the question of allegiance while pretending the question is offensive to ask.

It is not offensive. It is civic. It is democratic. It is necessary. So ask it clearly, without malice and without fear.

Who asked for this visit? Why did the government agree? And what exactly are Australians being told, in symbols rather than words, about where allegiance is supposed to lie?

Because if the answer is Australia, this visit makes no sense.

And if the answer is Israel, Australians deserve honesty about what has just been done in their name.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/what-is-israels-herzog-doing-in-australia-who-invited-him-and-why/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Nationals Leader David Littleproud easily saw off a token move to spill the party leadership on Monday. But he is now under immense pressure to reach a deal with Liberal leader Sussan Ley to put the Coalition together again.

With talks scheduled for Monday night, Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan flagged reunification as a top priority, proposing codifying the arrangements for future behaviour, with a mechanism to resolve disputes.

Littleproud split the Coalition after Ley sacked three Nationals frontbenchers who crossed the floor on the hate legislation, breaking shadow cabinet solidarity. Nationals sources said reinstating the three was a condition of a deal.

Ley’s numbers man, frontbencher Alex Hawke, delivered a strong call for Littleproud to return his party into a coalition with the Liberals.

Hawke told Sky: “We are urging him not to break the Coalition, because it will be the biggest own goal. It will be bigger, or as big, as the DLP split in the Labor Party [in the 1950s].

“If there’s any chance or prospect of turning away from this [divided] course, David Littleproud needs to turn away from scoring the biggest own goal of all time in the centre-right of Australian politics.”

The unsuccessful spill motion at the Nationals meeting came from backbencher Colin Boyce, a strong critic of how Littleproud handled events leading to the Coalition’s split that happened less than a fortnight ago. Boyce knew his motion would not succeed but wanted to make a point.

The meeting carried a motion moved by Victorian MP Darren Chester, to authorise the Nationals leadership team “to negotiate in good faith” and urgently with the Liberals’ leadership to re-establish “a Coalition for the duration of the 48th Federal Parliament”.

Chester said later, “After a very constructive discussion my motion was overwhelmingly supported because it’s in the best interests of the nation for the Coalition to reform and hold this government to account. I hope the negotiations are successful.”

A deal would strengthen Ley’s position in the short term against defence spokesman Angus Taylor, undermining any argument he might mount that only a change of leadership could reunite the Coalition.

Littleproud initially said his shadow ministers – who all quit after the three were sacked – could not serve in a Ley shadow ministry.

Hawke dismissed this as “a moment of anger. I haven’t heard him repeat that claim.”

Not all Liberals are anxious for a quick rapprochement, believing the party can better appeal to inner city voters if not tied to the Nationals.

The pressure on Littleproud to re-form the Coalition has been increased by a Redbridge poll in the Australian Financial Review showing One Nation polling 26%, well ahead of the Liberals and Nationals combined on 19%.

One Nation’s Barnaby Joyce on Monday flagged the party would announce on Tuesday a high profile recruit defecting from another party.

If the Coalition re-forms this would be the second time since the election. The post-election split was also brief.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: Littleproud and Ley turn on the music for another attempt at the two step – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-littleproud-and-ley-turn-on-the-music-for-another-attempt-at-the-two-step-274835

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/view-from-the-hill-littleproud-and-ley-turn-on-the-music-for-another-attempt-at-the-two-step-274835/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vicki Lowik, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQUniversity Australia

New South Wales is set to become the first jurisdiction in the country to end the use of good character references in the sentencing of convicted criminals.

The government will introduce a bill this week to amend the state’s sentencing laws. The amendment will stop people submitting references of their “good character” to lobby for more lenient sentences.

References attesting to the convicted criminal’s prospects for rehabilitation and their likelihood of reoffending will still be permitted.

The move acknowledges the potential re-traumatisation faced by victims when unsubstantiated character references from family and friends are submitted for consideration during sentencing hearings. Victims have stated the process can make them think the courts don’t care about or take seriously the harm they have experienced.

It’s a decision that aligns with expert evidence, so might other states follow suit?

What is a good character reference, exactly?

Good character references are letters presented to a court during the process of sentencing someone convicted of a crime. They are often provided by friends and family members, though references may be sought from employers, priests and other respected community members.

The references usually describe how the person is a valuable family or community member, has a good work record and no criminal history.

Character evidence can help a judge more fully understand the person they are sentencing and decide if they can be rehabilitated. Demonstrated prior good character enables the judge to ensure the appropriateness and fairness of the sentence.

But contemplating the subjective opinions of non-professionals regarding the possibility of rehabilitation can be problematic.

Such references have promoted people being sentenced for sexual assault and rape as having “high moral values”, being a “kind-hearted, loving father” or having a “good work ethic”.

Since 2009, NSW hasn’t allowed good character references for child sexual offenders who used their position of influence to gain access to victims.

But two sexual abuse victims, Harrison James and Jarad Grice, have led a campaign for more substantial change. Called Your Reference Ain’t Relevant, the campaign protested against convicted child sex offenders being able to produce glowing character references to reduce their sentence.

---

Read more:
Character references tell a court you’re a good person. Why are convicted rapists allowed to use them?

---

What does the evidence say?

The Australian Law Reform Commission has been reviewing justice responses to sexual violence. In its 2025 final report, the commission said it received submissions describing the provision of good character references for convicted sexual violence offenders as a “problematic” practice.

The commission noted the NSW Sentencing Council was reviewing the use of character evidence. It said the outcome of the NSW process would inform any suggestions for future reforms at a national level.

The New South Wales Sentencing Council’s report was released on February 1. It recommended legislation to prevent the court from using evidence that goes solely to a finding of good character. This legislation, however, may permit the court to consider other relevant evidence in sentencing.

The report states “there is no settled definition of what good character is, or what it reflects”. The council said the concept “has been criticised as being vague and incoherent […] lacking a settled definition”.

The council’s recommendations go beyond child sexual offences. They apply to all convicted offenders.

And for NSW at least, they would overrule a 2001 High Court decision allowing character to be considered in providing “some leniency” in sentencing.

Will other states do the same?

A report by the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Commission into the sentencing of sexual assault and rape recommended that some types of good character evidence be limited. It said good character evidence should only be used to assist the court in deciding on the rehabilitation or the potential recidivism of the convicted criminal.

The report recommended that courts have the option, depending on the nature or seriousness of an offence, to disregard character references when determining sentencing.

In September 2025, Queensland parliament passed legislation addressing the recommendations. The references can now only be considered to inform a judge’s assessment of the likelihood of rehabilitation or recidivism.

But as some frontline sexual assault services submitted in consultations this left open ways to circumvent the rule. Friends and family could provide references mentioning the prospects of rehabilitation.

So while there’s some movement on the issue in Queensland, if the NSW recommendations are to lead the way in nationwide reform, the task will not be easy.

Significant differences exist between the states. This is because apart from Commonwealth offences, criminal law remains primarily a state matter. This has produced divergent offence labels, maximum penalties and sentencing regimes.

Even on the specific issue of character evidence in child sexual offence proceedings, there are substantial differences in laws and contexts across the country.

These contrasts in approach to legislating the use of good character references in sentencing will, as observed by the Law Council of Australia, likely result in similar cases attracting different outcomes in different states.

But sometimes it just takes one bold attempt at reform to inspire action in others. As advocates have succeeded in NSW, it’s likely others will attempt similar change. State and territory governments have been put on notice.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. NSW is ditching good character references in sentencing. Will the rest of the country follow? – https://theconversation.com/nsw-is-ditching-good-character-references-in-sentencing-will-the-rest-of-the-country-follow-274842

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/nsw-is-ditching-good-character-references-in-sentencing-will-the-rest-of-the-country-follow-274842/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Griffiths, Democracy Deputy Program Director, Grattan Institute

Australia’s political parties set new records in funds raised and spent in the lead-up to the 2025 federal election. Now, nine months later, Australians finally get a look at who funded the parties’ election campaigns.

Data released today reveal that big money matters in Australian elections, and political donations remain highly concentrated among a small number of powerful individuals and interest groups.

The big spenders

Money matters in Australian elections because it helps spread political messages far and wide. The Coalition substantially outspent Labor in the year leading up to the 2025 election, declaring $212 million in expenditure compared with Labor’s $160 million. In fact, the two major parties together spent three quarters of a total $489 million in 2024–25. These figures include electoral communication, as well as party operating expenses and salaries, but there is no breakdown.

Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party came in third, declaring $53 million in expenditure, well below the $123 million and $89 million his United Australia Party spent in the 2022 and 2019 election campaigns, respectively. The Greens declared $40 million and One Nation just $3 million in expenditure in 2024–25.

Australia’s political parties collectively exceeded their 2022 election budgets in 2025, raising $490 million, compared with $402 million in the lead-up to the 2022 election, and coming very close to the half-a-billion mark for the first time.

The Coalition has long led the fundraising “arms race” between the major parties, with Labor taking a substantive lead only once on record – in the lead-up to the 2007 election that saw Kevin Rudd’s Labor Party defeat John Howard’s Coalition government.

The big donors

So who’s stumping up these whopping sums? A few big donors dominate the picture.

Clive Palmer’s Mineralogy – which donated almost exclusively to the Trumpet of Patriots – was by far the largest donor in the 2024–25 financial year. While Palmer’s $54.3 million in donations this electoral cycle is lower than his record-breaking intervention in 2022, it still shows the substantial sway a single donor can have in an election year.

Climate 200 was the second-largest donor over the period, with the organisation making $6.6 million in donations to a range of independent candidates and campaign groups. Donors to Climate 200 – including Scott Farquhar, William Taylor Nominees, and Mike Cannon-Brookes – were among those stumping up the largest individual donations.

One new player this cycle was Coal Australia, a lobby group founded in 2024 to represent coal mining interests. The group made more than $4 million in donations to electoral campaign groups such as Australians for Prosperity, and Jobs for Mining Communities.

The single biggest donation to the Coalition came from philanthropist Pam Wall, who gave $5.2 million to the Liberal Party of South Australia in 2024–25, in memory of her late husband, Ian Wall. Other major donors to the Coalition included the Cormack Foundation (an investment arm for the Liberal Party), Oryxium Investments (linked to the Lowy family), and DoorDash Australia.

Labor’s single biggest donor was Labor Holdings (an investment arm of the party), which donated $4 million, followed by the Mining and Energy Union ($3.3 million). SA Progressive Business, a fundraising arm of the Labor Party, donated $1.4 million.

Anthony Pratt’s paper and packaging company Pratt Holdings made big donations to both Labor and the Coalition, as it has done in previous years, with Labor benefiting to the tune of $2 million, and the Coalition $1 million.

What about the rest of the money?

There’s a lot of hidden money in Australian politics. Declared donations made up only a quarter of political parties’ total income in 2024–25. Public funding made up another quarter, and “other receipts” a further 20%. That leaves about 30% ($144 million) in undisclosed private funds.

The Coalition’s funding is a little more murky: 36% of Coalition income in 2024–25 was undisclosed, compared with 23% for Labor. Only donations bigger than $16,900 need to be declared under the current rules, so substantial donations remain hidden.

Reform is coming, but there’s still more to do

Fortunately, the rules are changing soon to provide much more transparency. From July 1 this year, the donations disclosure threshold will be lowered to $5,000, and donations data will be released much more quickly. Donations will be required to be disclosed within seven days during an election period, and at other times, within 21 days following the month the gift was received.

That means Australians will finally know who’s donating while policy issues – and elections – are still “live”.

The new rules also introduce caps on donations and electoral expenditure, helping to reduce the influence of money in politics. But the new rules unfairly advantage major parties over independents and new entrants.

The new total cap of $90 million for electoral expenditure by a political party is too high, keeping too much money in politics. And the per-seat spending cap of $800,000 is too low, advantaging incumbents over new entrants. There is also a loophole in the design of the donations cap that advantages major parties by allowing the cap to apply separately to each branch of a party.

The new legislation should be reviewed and amended to close the loopholes before the next federal election.

The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.

Matthew Bowes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. New data show where the parties got their money from in the lead-up to the 2025 election – https://theconversation.com/new-data-show-where-the-parties-got-their-money-from-in-the-lead-up-to-the-2025-election-274739

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/new-data-show-where-the-parties-got-their-money-from-in-the-lead-up-to-the-2025-election-274739/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

Coffee first entered human lives and veins over 600 years ago.

Now we consume an average of almost two kilos per person each year – sometimes with very specific preferences about blends and preparation methods. How much you drink is influenced by genes acting on your brain’s reward system and caffeine metabolism.

Coffee can raise your blood pressure in the short term, especially if you don’t usually drink it or if you already have high blood pressure.

But this doesn’t mean you need to cut out coffee if you have high blood pressure or are concerned about your heart health. Moderation is key.

So how does coffee affect your blood pressure? And if yours is high, how much is OK to drink?

---

Read more:
Health Check: four reasons to have another cup of coffee

---

What is high blood pressure?

Blood pressure is the force blood exerts on artery walls when your heart pumps. It’s measured by two numbers:

• the first and biggest number is systolic blood pressure, which is the force generated when your heart contracts and pushes blood out around your body

• the lower number, diastolic blood pressure, is the force when your heart relaxes and fills back up with blood.

Normal blood pressure is defined as systolic blood pressure of less than 120 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure of less than 80 mm Hg.

Once your numbers consistently reach 140/90 or more, blood pressure is considered high. This is also called hypertension.

Knowing your blood pressure numbers is important because hypertension doesn’t have any symptoms. When it goes untreated, or isn’t well-controlled, your risk of heart attacks and strokes increases, and existing kidney and heart disease worsens.

About 31% of adults have hypertension with half unaware they have it. Of those taking medication for hypertension, about 47% don’t have it well-controlled.

---

Read more:
Do you take your own blood pressure at home? Here’s how to choose the device that fits your arm best

---

How does coffee affect blood pressure?

Caffeine in coffee is a muscle stimulant that increases the heart rate in some people. This can potentially contribute to an irregular heartbeat, known as arrhythmia.

Caffeine also stimulates adrenal glands to release adrenaline. This makes your heart beat faster and your blood vessels to constrict, which increases blood pressure.

Blood caffeine levels peak between 30 minutes and two hours after a cup of coffee. Caffeine’s half-life is 3–6 hours, meaning blood levels will reduce by about half during this time.

The range is due to age (kids have smaller, less mature livers so can’t metabolise it as fast), genetics (people can be fast or slow metabolisers) and whether you usually drink it (regular consumers clear it faster).

The impact of caffeine on blood pressure from coffee (and cola, energy drinks and chocolate) varies. Research reviews report increases in systolic blood pressure of 3–15 and a diastolic blood pressure increase of 4–13 after consumption.

The effect of caffeine also depends on a person’s usual blood pressure. An increase in blood pressure may be more risky if you have hypertension and existing heart or liver disease, so it’s best to discuss your coffee consumption with your doctor.

What else is in coffee?

Coffee contains hundreds of phytochemicals: compounds that contribute flavour, aroma, or influence health and disease.

Phytochemicals that directly affect blood pressure include melanoidins, which regulate the body’s fluid volume and activity of enzymes that help control blood pressure.

Quinic acid is another phytochemical shown to lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure by improving the lining of blood vessels, allowing them to better accommodate blood pressure rises.

Can coffee cause hypertension?

In a review of 13 studies that included 315,000 people, researchers examined associations between coffee intake and the risk of hypertension.

During study follow-up periods, 64,650 people developed hypertension, with the researchers concluding coffee drinking was not associated with an increased risk of developing the condition.

Even when they examined data by gender, amount of coffee, decaffeinated versus caffeinated, smoking or years of follow-up, coffee was still not associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension.

The only exceptions suggesting lower risk were for five studies from the United States and seven low-quality studies, meaning those results should be interpreted with caution.

A separate Japanese study followed more than 18,000 adults aged 40–79 years for 18.9 years. This included about 1,800 people who had very high blood pressure (grade 2-3 hypertension), with systolic blood pressure of 160 or above or diastolic blood pressure of 100 or above.

Here, risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, including heart attack or stroke, was double among those drinking two or more cups of coffee a day compared to non-drinkers.

There were no associations with death from cardiovascular disease for those who had either normal blood pressure or mild (grade 1) hypertension (systolic blood pressure 140–159 or diastolic blood pressure 90–99).

The bottom line

There is no need to give up coffee. Here’s what to do instead:

1. know your blood pressure, health history and which food and drinks contain caffeine

2. consider all factors that influence your blood pressure and health – family history, diet, salt and physical activity – so you can make informed decisions about what you consume and how much you move

3. be aware of how caffeine affects you and avoid it before having your blood pressure measured

4. avoid caffeine in the afternoon so it doesn’t affect your sleep

5. aim to moderate your coffee intake by drinking four cups or less a day or switching to decaf

6. if you have systolic blood pressure of 160 or above or diastolic blood pressure of 100 or above, consider limiting to one cup a day, and talk to you doctor.

---

Read more:
Seven things to eat or avoid to lower your blood pressure

---

Clare Collins AO is a Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of Newcastle, NSW and a Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) affiliated researcher. She is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Fellow and has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, HMRI, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, WA Dept. Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute, Dietitians Australia and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns and was Co-Chair of the Guidelines Development Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Obesity 2025.

– ref. Does coffee raise your blood pressure? Here’s how much it’s OK to drink – https://theconversation.com/does-coffee-raise-your-blood-pressure-heres-how-much-its-ok-to-drink-270955

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/does-coffee-raise-your-blood-pressure-heres-how-much-its-ok-to-drink-270955/