GUEST POST from Don: Dumb Headlines

DUMB HEADLINES

Dumb headlines (and articles) fill America’s news feeds.  One can hardly read the news on any given day without at least one.  Each of these articles was written with an agenda and never left the agenda plantation to explore other possibilities.  Even if I were to agree with their conclusions I could not agree with their methods.  I try to keep my posts short (~1,000 words), and thus must skip differing opinions.  These articles have well over 6,000 words each, lots of room to be thorough and thoughtful if they so desired. 

“More than half of Americans with STDs were infected by cheating partners, survey finds
The study also reveals which US states have the highest STD rates
By Angelica Stabile Fox News
Published September 26, 2024 4:40am EDT”

Angelica claims the number is 55%!  How is this possible?  Two individuals are required (obviously) to have a partnership.  One of them cheats.  That means that 50% became cheaters and 50% had a cheating partner.  The cheater contracts a STD and passes it to the non-cheating partner.  Question:  What is the maximum percentage of non-cheating partners who have STDs as a result?  Can the number be any higher than 50% without some explanation of how the data was collected?   This story leads to an illogical conclusion.  The maximum and the logical result would have to be 50% or lower.  Otherwise we are back to blaming toilet seats or shared drinking glasses to allow a limited percentage of “cheaters” or non-cheaters a “safe” excuse for their infections.

“Can We Eat Our Way Out of the Climate Crisis?
Curbing our dietary carbon footprint won’t require a revolution. It’s already happening in farms and ranches across the country.
Ayurella Horn-Muller
Mother Jones, September 22, 2024”

First, they misname the issue.  It is not a “climate crisis” it is “man-made global warming.”  The key word in that being “man” meaning “human.”  (Except that science recently reported that the sun has increased brightness, thus heat, by 4.2% in the last half million years … which is never blamed even a smidgen for the increases in temperature we are seeing.)

Second, food is not the issue, it is the number of humans who need to be fed.  If we could eliminate all animal proteins from our diets (we can’t) we still could not slow down the “warming” problem.  That is because every year we add millions of additional people (the world population grows at ~1.5% annually) who then have to be fed plant proteins.  There isn’t enough land to produce those required plant proteins PRESENTLY, so how will there be enough after we add millions more people?  More people, more food needed, more machinery to plant, till, harvest, transport, refrigerate food.  Also, more canning, more mining to create the more metals, the more smelting of metals, etc.  More people means more destruction of our planet.

Third, what those who promote a “meatless future” ignore is that much of the land used to raise farm animals is unusable for any other purpose.  Growing up near a dairy farm it was the first thing I noticed.  Much of the pasture was wetlands, shrub lands, rocky ground, and water-courses.  Maybe 25% was usable as cropland.  Maybe another 10% could be redeemed (through much labor) into farmland.  Without the cows the farmer/rancher would have had to find another way to pay his property taxes and other expenses.  Crops would not have been enough to keep him in business.  By the way, many farmers who raise animals ALSO plant crops.  So, we can’t afford to throw away land which can support only animal production, can we?

Conclusion:  Merely changing what we eat can never save us!  Its only power is to doom.

“Severe obesity is on the rise in the US
Obesity is high and holding steady in the U.S. About 4 in 10 Americans have obesity overall and about 1 in 10 have severe obesity. That’s according to new government research.
By JONEL ALECCIA
Updated 5:57 AM EDT, September 24, 2024 article in AP.”

There is a problem with ALL health reporting.  They have changed the definitions.  In this case, the definition of what constituted “obesity” was adjusted mid-1998.  Before then you might have been merely “overweight.“  Now you are “obese.”  “Obese” became “grossly obese.”  The definition should not have changed.  

We know the definitions of “cause of death” has also seen multiple changes.  Now, if you are listed as “obese” by the new definition, it will be reported as a cause of death even if what actually killed you was a fast moving 2×4 connecting just behind the ear.  Thus, I don’t trust these reports any further than I can spit (never been a good spitter).

The second problem with these reports is how they report the numbers.  “On the rise” could be taken as a serious threat.  However, in my experiences from reading such articles (including this one) a minuscule increase of a few ounces over 10 years is not a significant change (especially if the average height has also increased?).  Should they not have reported that, due to the issues with COVID, the average person became less active.  A lot of people don’t even shower to go to work anymore (because they work from home).  That alone is 12 fewer steps per day.  Then they don’t walk out to their car or walk from the parking lot into the office.  Result:  Less active, fatter people.  Duh!  The cause is EASY to see.

“Why the World Is Becoming More Allergic to Food
The frequency of food allergy has increased over the past 30 years, particularly in industrialised societies.
BBC News
Dr. Alexandra Santos”

The headline and the article that follows neglects to include some significant details.  First, the world population has grown by ~47.5% in the last 30 years.  Could THAT be one of the reasons we are seeing more allergic reactions?  Just that one fact changes one’s perspective, doesn’t it!!!  By all normal math reasoning, the raw number of instances of allergies to foods should also increase by ~47.5%, right?

Second, “especially in industrialised societies” is indicative of the use of allergy causing inexpensive products.  If peanut oil is inexpensive it will be used.  You wouldn’t see as much “high-fructose corn syrup” used in food produced in sub-Saharan Africa as in England.  In the US we use cow’s milk, but in India and South America they might use goat milk.  This points not so much toward “the world … become More Allergic,” but the increase in the use of inexpensive products which can trigger allergies.

Third, as is typical in such “sensationalized” stories, there are no “apples to apples” comparisons.  They speak of 5-fold increases of peanut allergies in one country, but say nothing about the world-wide effect.  They speak of “increases” but they never show a chart which shows the percentages of 10 year olds (as of 30 years ago) vs the percentages of 10 year olds worldwide (currently).  Is the story true?  You can’t tell from the given facts.

[PLEASE NOTE that Don is always open to discussing the thoughts and opinions he shares here and welcomes comments as shared in the comment section. He doesn’t use other social media platforms and won’t see whatever you’d like to share with him if you post it elsewhere.
ALSO, Don is always open to offer his thoughts on various topics. If you have a specific request, you can let him know in a comment; he reads – and replies to – them all. ~ Sherry]

See more GUEST POSTS from Don!