Your suggestions in Comments.
Latest Posts
Today’s Earworm
Truly a long, long, long time since this song reappeared in my mind.
Just a simple little waltz tune… and much underappreciated.
Thanks, George.
Quote Of The Day
From Rick Moran:
“It’s not immoral to refuse to take people in. Those who claim we have an ‘obligation’ to feed, house, clothe, educate, and cure tens of millions of suffering people do not live in the real world.”
Yeah, the “Give me your poor” etc. words on the Statue of Liberty are just words on a statue, not official U.S. policy.
Trust Whom?
The other day New Wife and I were talking about something that affects her school greatly: peanut allergies among the kiddies — allergies which can be life-threatening.
I said to her: “When we were kids, nobody had a peanut allergy. Now it seems to be all over the place. When did this become so much of a problem, and why?”
Turns out the answer is quite simple: fucked-up science. Here’s the story:
The roots of this particular example of expert-inflicted mass suffering can be found in the early 1990s, when the existence of peanut allergies — still a very rare and mostly low-risk phenomenon at the time — first came to public notice. Their entry into public consciousness began with studies published by medical researchers. By the mid-1990s, however, major media outlets were running attention-grabbing stories of hospitalized children and terrified parents. The Great Parental Peanut Panic was on.
As fear and dread mounted, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a professional association of tens of thousands of US pediatricians, felt compelled to tell parents how to prevent their children from becoming the latest victims. “There was just one problem: They didn’t know what precautions, if any, parents should take,” wrote then-Johns Hopkins surgeon and now-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary in his 2024 book, Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.
Ignorance proved no obstacle. Lacking humility and seeking to bolster its reputation as an authoritative organization, the AAP in 2000 handed down definitive instructions: Parents should avoid feeding any peanut product to children under 3 years old who were believed to have a high risk of developing a peanut allergy; pregnant and lactating mothers were likewise cautioned against consuming peanuts.
The AAP noted that “the ability to determine which infants are at high risk is imperfect.” Indeed, simply having a relative with any kind of allergy could land a child or mother in the “high risk” category. Believing they were erring on the side of caution, pediatricians across the country started giving blanket instructions that children shouldn’t be fed any peanut food until age 3; pregnant and breastfeeding mothers were told to steer clear too.
So now we know when, and how. But what was this based upon?
What was the basis of the AAP’s pronouncement? The organization was simply parroting guidance that the UK Department of Health had put forth in 1998. Makary scoured that guidance for a scientific rationale, and found a declaration that mothers who eat peanuts were more likely to have children with allergies, with the claim attributed to a 1996 study. When he checked the study, however, he was shocked to find the data demonstrated no such correlation.
In fact, the way to prevent your kids from getting a peanut allergy is precisely the opposite to what these assholes insisted upon:
- when you’re pregnant, eat peanuts
- after the kid is born, feed it peanut butter (in small quantities, of course)
- so its physiology can learn to deal with peanuts, like it does with all foods and illnesses.
Fucking hell.
The next time someone suggests that we “trust the experts”, we should tell them to go and fuck themselves. And if bodies such as the AAP can’t be trusted to do the proper due diligence with the scientific data in hand, they need to be fired, sued and all the other ways that such negligence and outright error can be punished.
I was thinking “mass floggings”, but no doubt someone’s going to have a problem with this.
And if you’re wondering how we can ascertain such incompetence for ourselves, look askance at any suggestion which “errs on the side of caution“. (See: Covid-19, reaction to.)
Ditto anything that comes from the UK Department of Health (i.e. those fine folks who brought you today’s NHS).
That’s a red flag, if ever there was one.
Piling On
There are many times when I wonder (as do many of you) why I bother with the Daily Mail, which is a truly horrible publication. (It’s difficult to call it a “newspaper” because so much of it is utter rubbish.)
However, I can deal with “rubbish”. It’s when they publish outright misleading falsehoods that I get upset. Here’s an example:
Never mind “correlation” not being related to “causation”; the difference between “causation” and “coincidence” is even greater.
As we read this silly article, only in paragraph eleventy-hundred do we come across this embarrassing factoid:
Progressive Furniture, a division of Sauder Woodworking based in Claremont, North Carolina, announced its plans to close down and fire all 30 of its employees by the end of the year.
The firm grew to be the seventh largest furniture manufacturing company in the world – and was a much-loved brand, selling high-quality traditional and modern homeware at Walmart, Target and Home Depot.
Uhhhh Lauder may be large — and it is — but its tiny 30-employee subsidiary? Much less so. But it gets worse. You see:
Although it is an American company, its main supplier was based in Rosarito, Mexico. That manufacturer, Baja Wood, was responsible for more than 60 percent of Progressive’s inventory.
So Progressive is really just an assembly- and shipping operation? (That would account for its tiny workforce.) But what about this Baja Wood? In fact…
…the Mexican supplier’s internal dilemmas resulted in [Progressive’s] demise. Problems began back in January, when about 60 of Baja Wood’s 320 employees rallied in front of the factory in protest of reduced hours. Government labor investigators were called upon to evaluate the situation and production halted. However, once the investigation was closed, Baja Wood never reopened.
So that’s why Progressive failed: its major supplier went tits-up.
Trump’s tariffs, despite the screaming headline, had sweet fuck-all to do with it.
In future I think I’ll just stick with the Mail’s T&A content.
Caveat lector.
Speed Bump #3,248
At Insty’s place, I saw this:
…and I was irritated by the non-clarity of the post.
There’s always an issue when using numerical values when writing. You can write “Ninety-nine out of a hundred people think that George Soros is an evil cunt” — which is acceptable — or “99 out of 100 people think that George Soros is an evil cunt” which is equally so. One can argue that the latter usage is more effective in that the scale is better described, and that is generally true when using large numbers, e.g.
“The chances of that cunt George Soros being hit by a meteorite while crossing Sunset Boulevard on any given Thursday are 1 in 174 trillion” works better than “one in one hundred and seventy-four trillion” (too many words, albeit expressing the same distressingly-small likelihood).
However, in the above Twatter post, the writer should not have used the numeral in his sign-off sentence, because there’s another “1” preceding it — referring to the other cunt, Nancy Pelosi — and the sentence as written causes a mental speed bump because in actual fact it is Pelosi (#1) who has changed her position / sold out on the tariff issue. (Trump (#4) has never changed his position on tariffs: he’s been arguing in their favor since about the 1990s, long before he became a politician.)
“Only one hasn’t sold out” would have been the proper way to write it.