Interesting items from my inbox …
Good news about statins
I’ve written a few posts with variations of the title Bad News For Statins. But I can finally report some good news, thanks to an article from Reuters:
Roughly one third of U.S. adults should be on cholesterol-lowering drugs, according to current guidelines, but almost half of these people aren’t taking the medications, a recent study finds.
Yee-hah! Despite the medical industry’s efforts to declare almost everyone with a pulse abnormal and in need of treatment, half of those with “high” cholesterol aren’t swallowing statins.
More than 78 million people aged 21 and older have high enough levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) – the bad kind of cholesterol that builds up in blood vessels and can lead to blood clots and heart attacks – to be eligible for LDL-lowering drugs known as statins, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
But overall, only about 56 percent of people who might benefit from the drugs took them. Women eligible for treatment did better than men – about 59 percent of them were taking the drugs compared with 53 percent of their male peers.
I’m thinking the real problem here isn’t that people aren’t taking statins. The real problem is that bozos in the medical industry believe 78 million adults need them.
Some cardiologists believe the 2013 guidelines may have recommended treatment for too many people, particularly by suggesting some healthy individuals take drugs based on an estimated future risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The new guidelines may have roughly doubled the number of people eligible for treatment.
What a nice boon for the statin-makers. But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
I read elsewhere that more people are refusing statins because they’re concerned about side effects. I believe we can thank the Wisdom of Crowds effect for that. If you listen to the FDA or the average doctor, you’ll hear that very few people suffer side effects. But if you listen to the crowd, you know better.
The Anointed want even more calorie labels
There are 235 calories in a pint of Guinness Extra Stout. I know that because I spent almost five seconds conducting a Google Search. There are 149 calories in a bottle of Dos Equis. I found that info and calorie counts for dozens of other beers on this page — again, in about five seconds.
See? It’s quick and easy for beer-drinkers to look this stuff up if they care about calorie counts – which most of them don’t. But that’s not good enough for The Anointed. Nope, The Anointed believe we all need to be confronted with calorie counts, like it or not. Beer is next on their to-do list.
Soon enough, some restaurants, including all of the biggest chains, will be required to provide nutritional information for beer, just like every other product they sell. Walk into a TGI Friday’s or a Chili’s and you’ll be presented with calorie count, fat content, and more. And brewers aren’t happy about it.
Customers shouldn’t be happy about it either. If you want to drink beer and watch your calories, you can order a Miller Lite, a Bud Lite, an Amstel Light, etc. They’re all advertised as low-calorie, low-carb beers. But when most of us go out for a beer, we want to have a good time – not to have finger-wagging nanny-staters shove the calorie count in our faces.
The New York Post recently surveyed a selection of New York state brewers to find out what they think about the new rules. (The Post, delightfully, refers to government health regulators as “FDA busybodies.”) Brewers are nervous, fearing new regulatory costs and decreased sales.
I wouldn’t worry about those decreased sales. See above. Most beer-drinkers don’t give a hoot about the calories. If they do, they order a light beer.
Yet from the FDA’s perspective, this is pretty simple. “Americans eat and drink about one-third of their calories away from home, so making accurate and easy-to-see calorie information available for these foods is an important part of an overall effort to help consumers make their own informed choices for themselves and their families,” said Lauren Kotwicki, a press officer at the FDA.
Gee, Lauren, thanks so much for the help. I want to make informed choices when I’m in a bar, and by gosh, I just couldn’t do it without FDA regulations. I mean, it’s not as if I could look up the calorie counts on Google. Or just order a light beer.
How many people really know the nutritional information of beer and wine, even people who are conscious of calorie counts in other foods?
Very few, because they don’t give a @#$% when they’re ordering beer or wine. But if they want to know, they’ll spend five seconds on Google.
And those calorie counts can be high: Sierra Nevada’s Bigfoot, for example, is a very popular barleywine-style ale, and tops out at a whopping 330 calories and 30.3 grams of carbohydrates.
And how do you know about that whopping calorie count? Did you (just taking a wild guess here) look it up online in about five seconds?
If the point of the FDA’s labeling push is to discourage people from consuming too many calories, evidence is dubious that the strategy will work. A Washington Post survey from 2011 indicated that sales of high-fat, high-calorie products did not much decrease after nutritional labeling on them became mandatory.
Other studies reached the same conclusion. And yet despite no evidence whatsoever that calorie-count laws lead to people eating and drinking less, the FDA is moving ahead and forcing brewers to absorb the cost of providing calorie-counts that will be ignored … because that’s what The Anointed do. Failure is never a reason to abandon a Grand Plan.
Those danged vegans are ruining the planet.
How’s this for perfect timing? Two weeks ago, I wrote a post responding to a loony-leftie BBC writer who thinks governments should discourage eating meat to save the planet. But according to an online article in Science Daily, she’s the one responsible for global warmi—er, climate change:
Contrary to recent headlines — and a talk by actor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference — eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change.
In fact, according to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie.
Well, that’s it, then. Next time I see some vegan chomping down on a veggie burger, I’m going to walk over and scream, “Stop ruining my planet, you selfish bean-brain!” Then I’m going to demand that governments around the world apply “price reform” to make vegetarian meals prohibitively expensive. Fair is fair.
On one hand, the results showed that getting our weight under control and eating fewer calories has a positive effect on the environment and reduces energy use, water use and GHG emissions from the food supply chain by approximately 9 percent.
Oh, no. Now we’ll have loony BBC writers calling for governments to slap climate-change taxes on people who are overweight. That will suck … especially since the diet most governments recommend for losing weight is bad for the planet, according to the study.
However, eating the recommended “healthier” foods — a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood — increased the environmental impact in all three categories: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent.
“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”
So this holiday season, do your part to save the planet – eat more bacon.
Nutritionist vs. The Philadelphia Eagles
Sports stars make a lot of money endorsing food products. Peyton Manning appears in ads for Papa John’s pizza. The 1985 Super-Bowl Bears (ah, those were the days) did commercials for McDonald’s. Michael Jordan appeared on boxes of Wheaties. It’s been happening forever, but a “nutrition advocate” is very upset with a recent endorsement by the Eagles:
South Philly-based nutrition advocate and TV food personality Christina Pirello is steamed over the Eagles’ proclamation that Dunkin Donuts’ Sweet Black Pepper Bacon Sandwich is the team’s official breakfast sandwich.
She calls the croissant creation “deadly,” given its 560 calories (300 of them from fat, including four strips of bacon). “It’s the complete trifecta to steal our collective health — fat, sugar and salt,” Pirello wrote in an open letter to team owner Jeffrey Lurie, chastising the team for setting a poor example for the fans.
Fat, sugar, salt … I only see one bad ingredient in that list.
“I thought my head would explode,” Pirello writes.
That’s probably because you don’t eat enough fat.
“I find it completely mind-boggling that you would be so irresponsible as to allow our team to send the message to fans that this is something they eat and endorse eating.”
You need to look at the big picture, lady. The sandwich consists of a croissant, bacon, egg and cheese. You notice what’s NOT in that list? That’s right … no lettuce, cucumbers, eggplant or celery. Those foods contribute to global warmi— er, climate change. So the Eagles are just doing their part to save the planet. They should probably receive an award of some kind from Al Gore.
“Look, I’m not going all vegan on you, expecting the players to endorse tofu and sprout sandwiches, but there are far better choices for this team to promote than pure unadulterated junk food. Dunkin Donuts may be paying you a lot, but if all your fans drop dead of heart disease, your gorgeous green stadium will have a lot of empty seats with tickets unsold.”
If the Eagles end up with a lot of empty seats in the stadium next year, it will be because they couldn’t win a division where every team currently has a losing record.
Tomorrow is my last day of work before an end-of-the-year vacation that will be filled with visiting family in Illinois, Christmas (of course), putting together the family 2015 DVD, and (I hope) finishing my first rewrite of the book. Barring some news I simply can’t ignore, this will be my last post until after New Year’s.
Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Festivus, and a Happy New Year to all of you.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
“Walk into a TGI Friday’s or a Chili’s and you’ll be presented with calorie count, fat content, and more. And brewers aren’t happy about it.”
Fat content? No sweat, I only drink low-fat beers.
I’ve asked for the full-fat versions, but to no avail.
That reminds me of a sign our grocery used to have on the pistachio display – “Gluten Free!” Someone must have told them about nuts & they removed the sign. Pity – it was amusing. 🙂
I dare you to put on a dollop of pure cream into your next beer. 😉
“finger-wagging nanny-staters”…I love it!
Have a great end-of-the-year vacation!
Thank you.
Now that’s what I call a Festivus miracle: “Roughly one third of U.S. adults should be on cholesterol-lowering drugs, according to current guidelines, but almost half of these people aren’t taking the medications, a recent study finds.”
Yeehaa indeed!
Let’s keep Festivus rolling. Time for the airing of grievances and feats of strength.
The calories in booze thing strikes me as merely the last round in a long running tug of war between the ATF (now BAFTE) and the FDA.
The ATF prohibited nutritional information on booze.
The FDA mandated it on anything people consume.
The adult beverage industry was caught in the middle.
The ATF was evidently deeply worried that people would mistake beer for bread. We now know, of course, that beer is OK from time to time, but nobody should eat bread☺.
That all said, some of us are actually interested in both the net carb content, and the ingredients in our recreational beverages – and not just the celiacs trying avoid gluten-bearing grains. The ATF prohibition was eliminated some years ago, and some products do tell. Market forces would suffice here, but that’s incompatible with the FDA’s state of mind (or is that mind of state).
It’s definitely mind of state.
“Walk into a TGI Friday’s or a Chili’s and you’ll be presented with calorie count, fat content, and more. And brewers aren’t happy about it.”
Fat content? No sweat, I only drink low-fat beers.
I’ve asked for the full-fat versions, but to no avail.
That reminds me of a sign our grocery used to have on the pistachio display – “Gluten Free!” Someone must have told them about nuts & they removed the sign. Pity – it was amusing. 🙂
I dare you to put on a dollop of pure cream into your next beer. 😉
I like cream. I like beer. But that combination sounds horrible.
“finger-wagging nanny-staters”…I love it!
Have a great end-of-the-year vacation!
Thank you.
Now that’s what I call a Festivus miracle: “Roughly one third of U.S. adults should be on cholesterol-lowering drugs, according to current guidelines, but almost half of these people aren’t taking the medications, a recent study finds.”
Yeehaa indeed!
Let’s keep Festivus rolling. Time for the airing of grievances and feats of strength.
The calories in booze thing strikes me as merely the last round in a long running tug of war between the ATF (now BAFTE) and the FDA.
The ATF prohibited nutritional information on booze.
The FDA mandated it on anything people consume.
The adult beverage industry was caught in the middle.
The ATF was evidently deeply worried that people would mistake beer for bread. We now know, of course, that beer is OK from time to time, but nobody should eat bread☺.
That all said, some of us are actually interested in both the net carb content, and the ingredients in our recreational beverages – and not just the celiacs trying avoid gluten-bearing grains. The ATF prohibition was eliminated some years ago, and some products do tell. Market forces would suffice here, but that’s incompatible with the FDA’s state of mind (or is that mind of state).
It’s definitely mind of state.
Have you seen this yet? Its from a new TV show called Adam Ruins Everything. They did a bit on fruit juice and vitamins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYPdTvqitg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29v6rNFjlLI
Nice, although I’ll stick with the few supplements I take.
Had no idea about flavor packs in “pure” orange juice cartons..what a scam..
Saw this today. Guy loses 25 lbs. on a keto diet and the writer is up in arms over his increased salt intake. Because it is N=1, the writer dismisses it because it was not part of any long term study.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-jim-mccarter-learned-on-a-ketogenic-diet-2015-12?ref=yfp
Quick question. I get that you don’t believe in climate change, but it seems that your main complaint is that the scientists keep changing their story (“global warmi—er, climate change”). The basis of good science is that you start with a hypothesis, do studies to test that hypothesis, and change your hypothesis to reflect the results of the studies. You continue this process to keep getting more data and keep adjusting your hypothesis as needed. The big complaint with nutritional scientists is that they have accepted the lipid hypothesis and are refusing to adjust their hypothesis as new data comes in to challenge that belief. So why is it bad that nutritional scientists don’t adjust their hypothesis to accommodate new data but climate scientists are bad because they do just that?
Climate scientists (some of them) are bad because no matter what happens, they blame it on CO2. If it rains so much we get flooding, it’s CO2-driven climate change. If it doesn’t rain and there’s a drought, it’s CO2-driven climate change. If there are record-hot days, it’s CO2-driven climate change. If there are record-cold days in the winter, it’s CO2-driven climate change. They don’t just change the hypothesis based on evidence; they keep tagging on ad-hoc explanations so that no matter what happens, they can say it’s driven by CO2.
CO2 is such a small component of our atmosphere, yet critical to it. Al Gore actually fired an assistant who recommended adding more trees and plants near factories because they absorb carbon….didn’t fit his agenda.
Plant life is returning to the Sahara Desert after 10,000 years. You don’t see that on the news because it doesn’t fit the agenda.
Two of the main factors to changes in climate are the orbit around the sun by the earth and solar output. Bill Nye the Science Lie won’t tell you that. He’ll just bang on about how droughts are causing the Syrian refugee crisis and nothing about how they’re getting the crap bombed out of them.
What you say here is true. But it also doesn’t mean that the real threat – general warming and consequent melting of Greenland’s ice (medium term) and Antarctic ice (much longer term) and a potentially catastrophic increase in the sea level isn’t a very real danger we should be trying to mitigate.
I just assumed that global warming means greater weather volatility. More energy around to push weather systems around, or something. Whatever. That’s why they are now calling it “climate change”, right? Because global warming implies only warming to the simple-minded. CO2 => Warming => Energy => Climate Change.
Global warming is marketing. They are selling something that can neither be proven nor disproven and shame people (silence and abuse) into accepting it. Nutrition is about science becoming more settled than evolving. Again some marketing here as well.
What they both have in common is someone shouting loudly that there is a problem and proposing a solution regardless of whether a problem exists and regardless of whether the solution is realistic or rational.
Economics may be the dismal science, but climate science and nutritional science are close family members.
Economics is only dismal because it often tells you what you don’t want to hear, even if it’s correct.
There never was a hypothesis dealing with climate change, which no one I’m aware of doubts.
The “man causes climate change and we’re all going to die” scam is purely political, designed to halt capitalism, private property and transfer wealth to poor nations -not that I’m averse to helping them if needed – while enriching the really big capitalists – like the now-deceased Maurice Strong – even more.
See the book Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire and vids of the same name on youtube to get the gist.
You can also get the Agenda 21 booklet from un.org to really delve into the details.
In theory light beer has fewer calories than real beer per fluid ounce, but not by sitting. Everyone knows it was engineered to be “less filling” so, in reality, people just drink more of it. Good marketing: instead of enjoying 1 or 2 tasty beers, you end up buying 3 or 4 beer-substitutes. Cheers and Merry Christmas!
Maybe, but I sometimes order one or two light beers over the course of a steak dinner. Pretty much never becomes three or four in my case.
Speaking of the news, one thing nobody seemed to notice in Donald Trump’s Doctor’s announcment about his health is that he’s on statins. Might’n that explain his apparent and obvious cognitive difficulties?
Unfortunately, being on statins is quite common for men in his age group. Romney was on them too. Bill Clinton took them for awhile too, although I believe he gave them up.
He wants to stay alive so that he can experience what it is like to be First Lady.
“Might’n that explain his apparent and obvious cognitive difficulties?”
Like? Sounds more like youre not a fan of the DT, which is fine..but I cant see how someone can make a claim for cognitive difficulty about someone who’s had and continues to have massive success just because they dont like their views…I mean really..
I was indulging in a bit of hyperbole, I don’t actually think or know if DT has cognitive issues. I mean really…
BUT, that said, he is on record making a number of preposterous claims and absurd plans. So, maybe?
As to his success, I believe I read somewhere that it’s more a case of a guy who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. By objective standards, looking at what he started with and what he has now, it’s not all that grand. Don’t forget his numerous bankruptcies, etc. Maybe I’m wrong tho, I admit I havent paid much attention to him.
I believe he started with a million dollar loan. Granted thats a lot of money, but still he managed to turn that into a multi-billion dollar empire. Pretty impressive by any standard. As far as bankruptcies, I believe he’s used the law on 4 occasions (to his advantage btw). Thats 4 occasions out of 100’s of business endeavors.
Anyway I too noticed that the medical report showed a low dose statin use..intereresting to know what effect it’s had on his health. But having watched dozens of his interviews, Id say (at an age of 69) his mental acuity is extremely sharp.
Have you seen this yet? Its from a new TV show called Adam Ruins Everything. They did a bit on fruit juice and vitamins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYPdTvqitg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29v6rNFjlLI
Nice, although I’ll stick with the few supplements I take.
Had no idea about flavor packs in “pure” orange juice cartons..what a scam..
Personally, I look forward to having the calorie and carb count on all alcohol. I’ve found it can take quite a bit of searching to find calories and carb content of any alcohol, especially vodkas that have some sugar added to them. I wouldn’t mind these on wine, too. I’m trying to keep low carb even if drinking (no beer for me; I drink maybe three beers per year now due to their calories and carbs; and sadly not many drinks either).
There’s a big difference between “I wouldn’t mind having the information” and “the government should force brewers to provide the information on labels.” If you want the information and a brewer refuses to provide it — online or anywhere else — then the solution is to stop buying their products.
I’m definitely in agreement with Bob. I want to be able to make informed choices about what I buy. If I’m looking at tomato sauce I can directly see the sugar content of each brand ranging from 30% to 5%, and I’ll buy based on that info. This is a good thing. I don’t see why alcohol should be an exception.
This blog made me google the sugar content of Baileys… 20g per 100ml! I know you’ll call me a moron for not doing that already, but it just never occurred to me.
The Eagles probably DO have some sort of award from Al Gore. They are the first team to fit their stadium with wind turbines. If you have a chance to see a game on TV at Lincoln Financial Field, what you see around the top of the stadium are the turbines. They’re also very proactive with recyling.
And they’re not recommending vegetables, so they’ve got it all going.
Just to make sure I understand this, the “Eagles” are installing devices that are known to kill raptors? Perfect. Maybe the Dolphins could use tuna nets behind their goalposts.
Cheers
Saw this today. Guy loses 25 lbs. on a keto diet and the writer is up in arms over his increased salt intake. Because it is N=1, the writer dismisses it because it was not part of any long term study.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-jim-mccarter-learned-on-a-ketogenic-diet-2015-12?ref=yfp
Quick question. I get that you don’t believe in climate change, but it seems that your main complaint is that the scientists keep changing their story (“global warmi—er, climate change”). The basis of good science is that you start with a hypothesis, do studies to test that hypothesis, and change your hypothesis to reflect the results of the studies. You continue this process to keep getting more data and keep adjusting your hypothesis as needed. The big complaint with nutritional scientists is that they have accepted the lipid hypothesis and are refusing to adjust their hypothesis as new data comes in to challenge that belief. So why is it bad that nutritional scientists don’t adjust their hypothesis to accommodate new data but climate scientists are bad because they do just that?
Climate scientists (some of them) are bad because no matter what happens, they blame it on CO2. If it rains so much we get flooding, it’s CO2-driven climate change. If it doesn’t rain and there’s a drought, it’s CO2-driven climate change. If there are record-hot days, it’s CO2-driven climate change. If there are record-cold days in the winter, it’s CO2-driven climate change. They don’t just change the hypothesis based on evidence; they keep tagging on ad-hoc explanations so that no matter what happens, they can say it’s driven by CO2.
CO2 is such a small component of our atmosphere, yet critical to it. Al Gore actually fired an assistant who recommended adding more trees and plants near factories because they absorb carbon….didn’t fit his agenda.
Plant life is returning to the Sahara Desert after 10,000 years. You don’t see that on the news because it doesn’t fit the agenda.
Two of the main factors to changes in climate are the orbit around the sun by the earth and solar output. Bill Nye the Science Lie won’t tell you that. He’ll just bang on about how droughts are causing the Syrian refugee crisis and nothing about how they’re getting the crap bombed out of them.
What you say here is true. But it also doesn’t mean that the real threat – general warming and consequent melting of Greenland’s ice (medium term) and Antarctic ice (much longer term) and a potentially catastrophic increase in the sea level isn’t a very real danger we should be trying to mitigate.
Well, we can concoct countless disaster scenarios that can’t be proved or disproved, can’t we? The climate-change hysterics are asking us to sacrifice trillions of dollars and give up countless choices because by gosh their theories MIGHT be true. Sorry, but if that’s how you’re going to think, you all need to become reborn Christians. Because IF they’re right (and we can’t prove they’re not) and you don’t convert, you’re going to burn in hell forever. Better convert just in case.
The question shouldn’t be looked at from the standpoint of the scientists are right or the scientists are wrong. The question should be assessed from an expected value standpoint. Even if you think the scientists only have a 10% chance of being right, that still suggests we should take out a certain amount of insurance to stop it. So for instance if there is a 10% chance the scientists are right about, say, a 10 foot rise in the sea level over the next 200 years, how much should we spend on that today? The answer is whatever that will cost us in the future times 10% discounted back to the present. That would be a hell of a lot of money by the way.
Sorry, but I don’t buy that theory. I saw a dumbass video years back where some guy was sure he “proved” we need to spend huge sums of money to stop global warming. He laid out the consequences of acting and not acting if man-made global warming is true or not true. And since the consequences of not acting would be disastrous (if the theory turns out to be correct), then we must act.
Here’s the problem with his “proof”: Name any action you want someone to take. All you have to do is predict disastrous consequences for not acting, and by his logic, you will be compelled to act every time. You will be compelled to invade Iraq if there’s a small chance Saddam Hussein is selling WMDs to terrorists. You will be compelled to become a reborn Christian if there’s a tiny chance they’re right about who gets into heaven and who burns in hell.
Bjorn Lomborg has the right idea on this. Don’t spend trillions of dollars on useless plans to restrict CO2, which won’t prevent global warming anyway (if indeed it’s happening and we’re causing it). Figure out what the consequences of warming would be, then prepare to deal with them as efficiently as possible.
That Lomborg approach might actually work with Islamo-terrorism too.
Perhaps, but haven’t you heard? You’re not allowed to identify them as Islamo-terrorists, only terrorists. Otherwise you’re being a bigot.
if we’re going to pat down the 22-year-old Saudi we better pat down the 93-year-old grandma from Ireland too. We wouldn’t want to be called bigots.
“Name any action you want someone to take. All you have to do is predict disastrous consequences for not acting, and by his logic, you will be compelled to act every time.”
There are different probabilities attached to each potential problem and different costs for each problem’s solution.
Saying there’s a chance that aliens will destroy the planet in 50 years is not the same as saying there’s a chance you’ll get into a car crash. So it would be stupid to spend money on insurance for the former (no evidence, and how could you insure against it?) and not the latter (high probability and insurance is cheap).
In contrast, by your logic, we shouldn’t lift a finger to stop any disaster no matter how potentially disastrous and cheap the cost to insure against it.
Is there no amount of money you would spend to try to ameliorate this problem, for which there is a broad scientific consensus? $1? $1 million? $10 million? $100 million? Are you so certain of your belief that there isn’t a problem and nothing can be done to prevent it?
There was a “broad scientific consensus” for the Lipid Hypothesis. Shall we tax everyone to put statins in the drinking water, as some have proposed? Scientific “consensus” throughout the centuries has often been wrong.
Nor is the consensus for man-make global warming nearly as broad as the hysterics want us to believe. The hysterics and grant whores have done a wonderful job of intimidating scientists who disagree, but there’s still plenty of disagreement out there — and with good reason. In other words, it’s not a consensus.
So because scientists got the lipid hypothesis wrong, we shouldn’t let their data/analysis help guide our decision-making in any other sphere going forward?
There is certainly a consensus that carbon is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. The question is how much will it take to tip the scales to create a catastrophic effect on the environment? I agree this is very difficult and likely impossible to determine. I’m not saying we should spend trillions to try to mitigate this threat. But we should do something (i.e. spend more on renewable energy?) Certainly, there is some amount of money you agree that we should spend to take out some insurance here.
No, the point is that just because someone declares there’s a consensus, that doesn’t mean 1) there actually is a consensus or 2) the consensus opinion is correct.
Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is a consensus. Opinions vary as to how bad things will get. Regardless, we should work to mitigate the risk. I agree, though, that trillions in carbon taxes will probably be less effective and more damaging, however, than just spending billions to support renewable energy.
It’s not a consensus. There’s an appearance of consensus that’s manufactured, largely through intimidation of scientists who dare to disagree (whether you choose to acknowledge it or not). What we often see in this arena are exactly the tactics described by former Clinton aide Kirsten Powers in her terrific book “The Silencing”: don’t debate the opposition on the facts; declare them to be horrible, horrible people, tools of evil capitalism, racists, Holocaust deniers, jaywalkers, whatever smear might stick, and then attempt to silence them.
When Bjorn Lomborg’s book “Cool It” was coming out, to name one example, the loons went crazy trying to stop it from being published. And the silence-all-who-question crowd is still at it:
https://reason.com/archives/2015/05/19/academic-orthodoxy-closes-ranks-against
These aren’t people who are confident in their position and willing to debate it. They’re true-believer loons who want to shut off debate … by declaring that the evidence is in, there’s a consensus, no more need to discuss, no burden of proof required to be met, move along people, nothing here to see, just give us your money and your freedom and shut up already.
According to your link, Lomberg himself says that climate change is real. So the guy you point to as being against the consensus, is actually part of it (he differs only on what to do about it).
No, I didn’t point to him as being against the consensus. I pointed to him as an example of how the loons attempt to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with them totally. Lomborg believes climate change is real but won’t cause the worldwide disasters the hysterics are predicting, so they wanted him silenced. They didn’t want people to even consider his ideas. That’s how true-believer loons operate.
So if they’ll do that to someone who merely disagrees on how to solve the problem, imagine what they’ll do to someone who says the whole theory is wrong.
So I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Do you not agree that pumping lots of carbon into the atmosphere warms the planet? Do you not think ocean acidification is real? Do you not perceive risks from this? Or is your only issue how we go about solving the problem (carbon tax vs. subsidies for alternative energies, e.g.)? I agree that debate on the issue should not be suppressed. But that’s not the central issue, which you’re skirting with your focus on whether or not there’s a scientific consensus. You either think there’s a risk or you don’t. And if you do then the debate should center around what to do about it.
I’m not inclined to type a bunch of explanations that I’ve typed before. So perhaps these posts from my other blog will explain. (I’ve let that blog go dormant, so don’t bother commenting there.)
http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=387
http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=619
The Saddam Hussein analogy doesn’t hold in this case either. Why? Both politics and the climate are infinitely complex systems with non-linear outcomes. That means intervention is far more dangerous than removing an intervention and letting the system work. So
Intervening in Iraq increases risk (by introducing the possibility of a catastrophic outcome)
Inserting man made carbon into the atmosphere is also a very risky intervention. Working to reduce the carbon thus actually reduces risk.
Let’s see … the climate is infinitely complex, but the hysterics know — I mean they JUST KNOW! — we’re going to raise the global temperature by 3 degrees Celsius, and they know what the consequences will be. Sure, makes sense. They also know — I mean they JUST KNOW! — their Grand Plans to tax trillions of dollars out of the economy and divert it to their preferred projects will stop these horrors.
Yeah, that’s totally logical.
You’re creating a straw man. The basis of my argument is not that climate scientists can perfectly predict the temperature rise nor that we should tax trillions. The basis of my argument is that burning lots of fossil fuels and thereby injecting lots of carbon into the atmosphere is a risk we should work to mitigate in one way or another. Do you not agree that there’s a risk here? Is there no amount of money you would be willing to spend to take out some insurance?
I’m not against intelligent spending. That is, in fact, the major point of Lomborg’s excellent film “Cool It” … there are far smarter ways to spend money than the current Grand Plans.
Fair enough. Just don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, don’t use “trillions in carbon taxes” or “we can’t predict the future” as an excuse to do absolutely nothing.
Instead of being taxed to death, where the money is just gonna get grossly mismanaged and spent, everyone could just ride bicycles and stop (or drastically limit) their use of electricity. You wanna “save the planet”? How far are you willing to go?
Right, let’s get the various crippled people, asthmatics and disabled on bicycles!
Not everyone is able to get on a bike.
Ha funny..Actually I wasnt being serious. I was trying to point out the irony of those wanting ridiculous amounts of tax money going towards “saving the planet”…money thats just gonna get grossly mismanaged.
While still wanting the luxury of motor vehicles and electricity production.. major contributors to CO2 emissions any way you cut it.
Even if I was being serious, I wouldnt suggest physically or mentally challenged people (a minority btw) should do it..thats just silly 😛
Greenland’s ice is expanding and recall what happened to that ship filled with scientists that got stuck in the Antarctic last year? Two rescue ships, including ice cutters, also became stranded due to the thickness of the ice.
Of course, you won’t hear that on ABCNNBCBSFOX.
And the ice mass in Antarctica is increasing.
Please link to research to support your argument. I found this which disputes it.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm
Meteorologists, who I find credible:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/30/greenland-ice-melt-due-to-global-warming-found-not-so-bad-after-all/
Of course glaciers still fall off and become icebergs. An iceberg sank the Titanic. Can we thus say that global warming was around in 1912 and the blame for this tragedy?
And the scientist who got stuck in the “melting” polar ice cap?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/5/curl-irony-alert-global-warmists-get-stuck-in-ice/?page=all
I’m a skeptic, too, but in the other direction. You believe what you want to believe.
Your research doesn’t say the Greenland ice sheet is growing. It just says it’s shrinking a bit slower than scientists thought.
These are just a few articles that cast much doubt on Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Even though this article is still in the tank for AGW, it cites research that shows the arctic has increased in the last two years (also more dense). Of course they are full of excuses why this happened and that man-made warming is still happening. The bottom line is the ice increased when “experts” said we’d have no ice in the summer of 2015.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html
From a few years ago. It shows that the Antarctic has increased 1% each decade since 1979 (when recording began). Of course they have scientists saying this is still a part of global warming! There is nothing real that will happen that will make them re-think their (flawed) computer models showing manmade global warming.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/Now-theres-ice-South-Pole-So-global-warming-thawing-Antarctica.html
Here is an amusing rundown of the East Anglia University scandal regarding data manipulation (aka climategate).
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
More fiddling with data:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Even a co-founder of Greenpeace is a skeptic.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/
Weather Channel founder a skeptic too.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/27/weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-climate-change-myth
Whatever you believe, it is definitely not settled science.
I just assumed that global warming means greater weather volatility. More energy around to push weather systems around, or something. Whatever. That’s why they are now calling it “climate change”, right? Because global warming implies only warming to the simple-minded. CO2 => Warming => Energy => Climate Change.
We’ve had volatile weather forever. We had a busier-than-usual hurricane season a few years back — aha! It’s all because of increased volatility caused by climate change! The next year was quieter than usual. Not a peep from the climate-change hysterics.
Me again.
I see what you’re saying, and since I’m not a climate scientist I can’t answer your questions. I know you’re busy, but scientists really do like to talk about their work with the public. I’m sure you could talk with someone from a university’s environmental sciences department and ask them to explain why they’ve come to the conclusions they have. Yes, there are jerks in every discipline, but if you get a jerk, try again somewhere else. It couldn’t hurt, right?
Yes, I’m sure the university climate scientists could explain their conclusions, just as all the scientists who promoted arterycloggingsaturatedfat!! hysteria could explain theirs.
Global warming is marketing. They are selling something that can neither be proven nor disproven and shame people (silence and abuse) into accepting it. Nutrition is about science becoming more settled than evolving. Again some marketing here as well.
What they both have in common is someone shouting loudly that there is a problem and proposing a solution regardless of whether a problem exists and regardless of whether the solution is realistic or rational.
Economics may be the dismal science, but climate science and nutritional science are close family members.
Economics is only dismal because it often tells you what you don’t want to hear, even if it’s correct.
And the people pushing it want to throw people in jail for denying it. Isn’t that what they did to the likes of Galileo?
“Truth needs no law to support it”.
Silencing the opposition has always been a favorite tactic among fanatics pushing nonsense.
There never was a hypothesis dealing with climate change, which no one I’m aware of doubts.
The “man causes climate change and we’re all going to die” scam is purely political, designed to halt capitalism, private property and transfer wealth to poor nations -not that I’m averse to helping them if needed – while enriching the really big capitalists – like the now-deceased Maurice Strong – even more.
See the book Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire and vids of the same name on youtube to get the gist.
You can also get the Agenda 21 booklet from un.org to really delve into the details.
I appreciate your interpretation of the people not taking statins. This is causing doctors to push statins even heavier and now doctors are even pushing statins at children of sic years of age and older. URL = http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/55135?xid=NL_breakingnews_2015-12-10&eun=g528893d0r .
“Statin use has become what appears to us to be a kind of religion, an unchallengeable article of faith among some doctors.”
“A kind of religion” is the apt term.
In theory light beer has fewer calories than real beer per fluid ounce, but not by sitting. Everyone knows it was engineered to be “less filling” so, in reality, people just drink more of it. Good marketing: instead of enjoying 1 or 2 tasty beers, you end up buying 3 or 4 beer-substitutes. Cheers and Merry Christmas!
Maybe, but I sometimes order one or two light beers over the course of a steak dinner. Pretty much never becomes three or four in my case.
Speaking of the news, one thing nobody seemed to notice in Donald Trump’s Doctor’s announcment about his health is that he’s on statins. Might’n that explain his apparent and obvious cognitive difficulties?
Unfortunately, being on statins is quite common for men in his age group. Romney was on them too. Bill Clinton took them for awhile too, although I believe he gave them up.
He wants to stay alive so that he can experience what it is like to be First Lady.
“Might’n that explain his apparent and obvious cognitive difficulties?”
Like? Sounds more like youre not a fan of the DT, which is fine..but I cant see how someone can make a claim for cognitive difficulty about someone who’s had and continues to have massive success just because they dont like their views…I mean really..
I was indulging in a bit of hyperbole, I don’t actually think or know if DT has cognitive issues. I mean really…
BUT, that said, he is on record making a number of preposterous claims and absurd plans. So, maybe?
As to his success, I believe I read somewhere that it’s more a case of a guy who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. By objective standards, looking at what he started with and what he has now, it’s not all that grand. Don’t forget his numerous bankruptcies, etc. Maybe I’m wrong tho, I admit I havent paid much attention to him.
I believe he started with a million dollar loan. Granted thats a lot of money, but still he managed to turn that into a multi-billion dollar empire. Pretty impressive by any standard. As far as bankruptcies, I believe he’s used the law on 4 occasions (to his advantage btw). Thats 4 occasions out of 100’s of business endeavors.
Anyway I too noticed that the medical report showed a low dose statin use..intereresting to know what effect it’s had on his health. But having watched dozens of his interviews, Id say (at an age of 69) his mental acuity is extremely sharp.
Hi Tom,
a couple of days ago one person asked me what was my opinion about the IMPROVE IT trial. He asked me: “Do you think it proves the lipid hypothesis?”
I didn’t know about the IMPROVE IT trial at the time (funded by Merck, BTW)
From the article: ” When added to statins, ezetimibe reduces LDL cholesterol levels by an additional 23 to 24%”
“at 1 year, the mean LDL cholesterol level was 69.9 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group and 53.2 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group”
From the article (data at 7 years, table 2):
-Death from any cause (statin): 15.3%
-Death from any cause (statin+ezetimibe): 15.4%
Lower cholesterol, slightly more deaths…
That’s the definitive proof that “lower is better“.
Merry Christmas!
Amazing, isn’t it?
Personally, I look forward to having the calorie and carb count on all alcohol. I’ve found it can take quite a bit of searching to find calories and carb content of any alcohol, especially vodkas that have some sugar added to them. I wouldn’t mind these on wine, too. I’m trying to keep low carb even if drinking (no beer for me; I drink maybe three beers per year now due to their calories and carbs; and sadly not many drinks either).
There’s a big difference between “I wouldn’t mind having the information” and “the government should force brewers to provide the information on labels.” If you want the information and a brewer refuses to provide it — online or anywhere else — then the solution is to stop buying their products.
I’m definitely in agreement with Bob. I want to be able to make informed choices about what I buy. If I’m looking at tomato sauce I can directly see the sugar content of each brand ranging from 30% to 5%, and I’ll buy based on that info. This is a good thing. I don’t see why alcohol should be an exception.
This blog made me google the sugar content of Baileys… 20g per 100ml! I know you’ll call me a moron for not doing that already, but it just never occurred to me.
If you want to make informed choices, you buy from manufacturers willing to provide the info. You look up stuff online. You don’t buy from manufacturers who keep the sugar content a secret, and you let them know why you’re not buying from them. That’s how freedom is supposed to work. They’re free to keep the info a secret, and you’re free to punish that decision by not buying.
What you all are saying here is, “I like having that information, and since that’s what I want, the government should force other people to provide it for me.” Keep in mind that EVERY LAW is backed up with the threat of armed force — thus the word “enforcement.”
So the difference between you and me isn’t whether we might find the information useful. The difference is that I don’t believe just because I want something, I’m entitled to have the government force someone else to give it to me under the threat of armed violence.
The way people willy-nilly support having the government take away other people’s freedoms these days — because by gosh, that would be convenient for ME!! — scares the hell out of me.
I think your ideology is getting in the way of your common sense.
A company is not a person. We are not restricting *people’s* freedom by regulating companies. Companies will do their utmost to coerce people into buying their product (within the law and reputational boundaries). Freedom for the company (to not print nutritional labels) does not equal freedom for the people (freedom of informed choice).
You say that companies that choose to label their product should sell more as a result. I disagree because it is not possible to compare that product against competitors (because they don’t label). For example, “low carb bread” is now available. But because I can view the carb content of all other breads I can tell the claim is bullshit (38g vs 44g, or whatever). Oh but you might say “google it”, but I again say bullshit. You can’t spend your entire day googling nutritional content of every food at the supermarket; you’d be there all day!
You’re the one letting ideology get in the way of common sense. Please describe exactly how these evil companies “coerce” you into buying their products. Coercion requires force or the threat of force. Governments apply coercion. Companies can’t, not legally. All companies can do (without bribing government to get involved) is offer you a product to buy or not buy. You’re free to say no thanks. They’re free (or should be) to refuse to alter their products to your liking.
It doesn’t matter if a company is a person or not. Companies are owned by people. When you ask government to force a company to give you what you want, some person (or persons) have to fulfill that demand and incur the expense. That’s the fact loony lefties prefer not to think about, because then they’d have to accept that they’re not really the nice and wonderful folks they think they are. “Oh, well, ya see, we’re only making these demands on corporations, doncha know, not actual PEOPLE!”
Fine, I’ll make you a deal: you can demand all you want from corporations … as long as no people have to get involved in fulfilling your demands. If this magical non-person called the “company” somehow fulfills your request without actual people having to do the work or incur the expense, I’m fine with it. Does that work for you?
Here’s how we know if we’re talking about genuine freedom, as opposed to cockamamie theories like your “freedom of informed choice”: genuine freedom doesn’t require other people to do anything other than leave you the hell alone. Your freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., don’t require other people to labor or spend money on your behalf. Your “freedom of informed choice” does. So it’s not freedom; it’s coercion, no matter how you represent it to yourself in your mind to avoid admitting what it really is.
You don’t have to spend all day in the supermarket Googling every product. You vote with your dollars by buying the products from manufacturers who provide the information you want. Plenty of providers will be happy to fulfill the demand for low carb breads, beers, etc., that are labeled. If not, too friggin’ bad. You’ll live. No one’s harming you. They’re just not giving you what you want.
More entitlement belief systems…i.e. “you owe me X”. Keep making demands and we’ll soon find that more companies will start automating..
These issues are all first world, rich country problems..When society has the luxury of not having to worry about basic survival (food, water, and shelter) all hell breaks loose. We get spoiled because we can go to giant warehouses full of food whenever we want. Not only that, we want convenient and labeled packaged and canned goods and we want them now!
So spoiled are we.
Guess we can thank technology for that too..The easier it is to survive, the more freedom we have to find and think about purpose..in other words..too much time to think..
About the whole ‘corporations are the enemy’ mindset, who’s really to blame? Who really has power? People think it’s corporations because they have the money to buy power…but whos doling out the power to begin with? It’s like being angry at a drug user but not the supplier..and then asking the supplier to regulate the user..No, the corporations are hooked on the power that government sells, and theyll pay any amount of money for it..In a true capitalist society, corporations would not be able to buy special favors from governing authority…and governing authority would have very little control of pretty much anything except in cases of protecting life, property and liberty..
And finally, why be mad at a corporation for making foods and products that you the consumer wanted? Who got us in this horrific dietary mess in the first place? Was it evil marketing from private industry? No, they were simply meeting a demand based on dopey dietary guidelines promoted by gov…Lets put the blame where it belongs.
Hear, hear! When people complain about those “powerful corporations” and you ask them to explain, it nearly always comes down to essentially buying power from government, which government then enforces. If government stuck to its legitimate functions, corporations would have no reason to buy influence.
Yep. People always blame corporations for “forcing” them to do this or that. It’s never true, it’s just that corporations have made X more convenient. Since these entitled people don’t want to go elsewhere to buy less convenient products or not buy the product, they are entitled to force the corporations that have made products convenient to be even more convenient.
But as Tom and others have mentioned, it’s all about mindset. Since corporations are evil, we ought to make their lives more difficult for our own convenience because they ought to be punished for their success. If these same people were buying canned goods that farmer Brown down the street canned himself, they wouldn’t ever think of forcing the gov’t to make him label the nutritional info of his canned goods. What they don’t realize is the reason farmer Brown down the street can’t legally sell you his home-canned goods is because of all the regulations these entitled people demand of big corporations also apply to small businesses and mom and pop establishments.
Always the most ignorant people hurting the little guy because they don’t understand that when you try to hurt the “villain”, everyone suffers.
From David Mamet’s wonderful essay Why I’m No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/david-mamet-why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal-6429407
And I began to question my hatred for “the Corporations”—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.
Ahhh! Free Market Government! 1$ 1 vote.
It’s not working out for most of us.
But, Tom, what if 51% of the people wanted calorie labeling?
Our system of government was never supposed to allow a majority of Americans to vote to strip freedoms from the minority. That’s why we have a Constitution, and that’s why the power of government was supposed to be strictly limited. Or as Winston Churchill put it, democracy isn’t supposed to consist of two wolves and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner.
There’s a reason Prohibition required a Constitutional amendment: back in those days, judges took the limits of the Constitution seriously. No way could Congress have simply voted to ban the making and sale of alcohol. Courts would have struck it down in 30 seconds.
(I’m assuming you were being sarcastic with your “what if 51% voted for it” remark, by the way.)
“..what if 51% of the people wanted calorie labeling?”
Then that 51% could petition companies (not gov) to provide labeling. Whether or not the company does it is another story..If they dont meet their demands, then those people can choose to not buy their products. Influence not coercion…simple.
Yeah, we’re so spoiled. Companies literally invented fake food and marketed it as real food, making nutritional labels necessary. Have you ever read the ingredients of what they call “beef gravy” nowadays? You call us spoiled for wanting to know what shit they’re feeding us?
Yes, you’re spoiled. Americans spend less of their incomes for food than people in any other country on the planet. The vast majority of us can freely choose from a dizzying array of foods, everything from pure junk to locally grown organic. And yet you think you’re getting screwed by evil corporations because not all of them put the carb count on a beer label — a count you could look up online. You’re a child.
And not a very intelligent one, apparently. Do you see a wee bit of a contradiction between “have you ever read the ingredients …” and “wanting to know what shit they’re feeding us?” You can easily find out what shit they’re feeding you. If you can’t find out, don’t buy it. Simple as that.
The point I was making was that if they *didn’t* label (as you seem to think would be perfectly ok) we would not know what shit they are feeding us.
“Voting with your dollar” only works if you have enough money to do so, and if the choice between labelled and non-labelled exists in the first place. Is the cheapest food likely to be labelled in your fantasy land where companies voluntarily label their food?
>”Americans spend less on food than people in any other country on the planet”
Well, good for you. Too bad I’m not American.
Yes, genius, we would know what they’re feeding us. People would run tests and post the results, just as there were plenty of books listing calorie counts longs before labels were mandatory. And if you’re afraid to eat food from a can because you don’t know what ingredients are in the can, here’s how you handle that: don’t buy canned food. Buy ingredients and cook for yourself.
If people want to know what’s in the food, companies will provide the information or suffer the consequences. There’s a reason Kroger came up with a new line of foods called “Simple Truth” with very few ingredients (all listed): that’s what consumers are demanding now. The processed-food makers are losing sales as the real-food demand rises. Corporations don’t control the market. Consumers do.
Tom: Sorry, I just don’t buy it. If labelled ingredients were not required by law, I don’t think people would choose more-expensive labelled food over heavily marketed, cheaper non-labelled food. You need a fair comparison. And again, assuming that people are going to google every product in the supermarket is just rubbish.
Here’s an experiment for you: go out on the street and ask random people how many calories are in a beer. I think you’ll find that most people don’t have a clue. But wait! Shouldn’t they have googled it already?
When you post a comment, you should stop for a moment and ask yourself if you’re about to prove my point or yours. This statement …
Here’s an experiment for you: go out on the street and ask random people how many calories are in a beer. I think you’ll find that most people don’t have a clue.
… proves my point. Of course most people don’t know how many calories are in beer — because when they go out for a beer, they don’t give a @#$% about calories. If they did, they’d look it up or order a light beer. That’s why mandatory calorie labels are a stupid, expensive waste of money and effort. Several studies have already shown that those labels don’t change what people buy.
And yes, companies would label their ingredients even if the law didn’t require them to do so, because that’s what consumers demand. I see all kind of products in the grocery store that say GMO FREE! in big letters on the label. There’s no law requiring that label. It’s there because the producers know more people these days are demanding GMO-free foods. Same goes with the gazillion GLUTEN-FREE! labels I see everywhere.
And if people would rather buy non-labelled food because it’s cheaper (which it isn’t), so be it. If I offer you a cheap-ass food and part of the deal is that I won’t tell you what’s in it, you are free to walk away. Freedom doesn’t mean getting everything you want. It means nobody forces you to make exchanges you don’t want to make, period.
Yes, you are correct; no one gives a shit about the number of calories in beer. But I would put forward that the reason is they DON’T KNOW how many calories are in beer! If they did, perhaps they wouldn’t drink so much. So the goal is to change consumer behaviour by making the calorie count common knowledge.
No, they don’t give a @#$% because they don’t give a @#$%. Light beers advertise their calorie counts all the time, so anyone with half a brain knows if you don’t order light beer, the calorie count will be considerably higher.
You have this vision of people as these mindless automatons walking around ordering beers they wouldn’t buy if only someone would shove the calorie counts in their faces. You should probably stop programming and get a government job. Your attitude is perfect for government work.
Reminds me of the scene in “Fat Head” where you hold up the calories counter book…
Yup. Low-tech solution.
Well… I wouldn’t say mindless automatons. Just naive/ignorant. But yes! I think calorie counts have the potential to alter buying behaviour!
Take Baileys as an example again: 100ml has the calories of TWO AND A HALF cans of coke! HOLY SHIT that’s a lot. Maybe if I could compare this to beer/wine in the shop I would choose more wisely.
So those studies showing that calorie-count laws have no effect on buying behavior mean nothing to you, eh?
Well, of course not. You’ve already expressed an attitude worthy of The Anointed: most people are naive and ignorant, ya see, and therefore need you to “help” them make better decisions by confronting them with calorie counts — even though they’re clearly not interested enough in calories to spend a few seconds online. And even though the available evidence says your plan won’t work, you still think it should imposed on others — for their own good, of course!
I’ve read several of your comments. Trust me on this: you aren’t intelligent enough to have such a superior attitude towards other people.
Please link said studies. Keep in mind that my argument has never been specific to calorie counts. Where I come from alcoholic beverages are exempt from ALL labelling; no ingedients, no macronutrients.
Stop being lazy. I’ve written posts about those studies that include the links. Go find them.
Where you come from you can also look up the information in seconds, since you obviously own a computer. And again, if you’re mad at the brewers who don’t provide the information, the proper response is to stop buying their products, not to demand government force them (under the threat of armed violence) to give you want you want.
Yes, we are spoiled because we (for the most) hardly ever have to worry about access to food, water, and shelter. If someone cant see that, maybe they could go to an underdeveloped area in some third world country. Theyll have a hard time finding a Whole Foods, washing machine, and all the luxuries that are taken for granted.
You can get me on semantics, fine. But it doesn’t take much imagination to get my meaning of “coerce” in that context.
Companies are made of people, sure. But who tells those people what to do? Their bosses. Who tells them what to do? The owners. What’s the price of not doing what you’re told? You get fired, or you can “vote with your job”, which is a really stupid idea if can’t get another job. A corporation is basically totalitarian. How does that fit in with your head-in-the-clouds notion of libertarian freedom? Sure, no one is going to hold a gun to your head (they probably would if they could), but there are other forms of power & control that you conveniently ignore.
There is a massive conflict of interest between the owners of a corporation and “the little guy”. There is rift in power between owners and the workers. Because of this, the owners will keep winning (and getting richer) and the workers will keep losing (and getting poorer) unless there is an external force to keep things in check. That is why I don’t have a problem with certain forms of governmental regulation (or “coercion” as you would put it). That is NOT to say I agree with every stupid “grand plan” some idiot comes up with.
Like I said, each time you post, my estimate of your intelligence drops again. No, corporations don’t “coerce” you by having the power to fire you. When you take a job, you enter into an agreement. They tell you what work to do, and you do it in exchange for money. If you don’t hold up your end of the deal, they don’t have to hold up theirs — in other words, they don’t employ you anymore. By the same token, you can voluntarily walk away if you don’t like the terms. In fact, I did that once. An employer hired me for a programming job, but then wanted me to pee in a bottle and take a drug test. I explained that I would pass the test, but nonetheless refused to pee in a bottle for them because whether or not I smoke pot on weekends (which I don’t) is none of their business. We didn’t come to terms, so I chose to walk away.
Employers don’t “coerce” you any more than you “coerce” the plumber you won’t hire again if he doesn’t fix the sink, the barber you don’t go to again if you don’t like your haircut, or the store you don’t patronize anymore if you don’t like prices and selection. You seem to think employers are doing something evil by setting conditions on paying you. We all do that. That’s what a voluntary agreement is all about. The fact that you don’t like the terms a company sets for paying you doesn’t mean it’s not voluntary.
“Basically totalitarian” … Yeah, if you don’t do what the corporation says, they send people with guns to arrest you, right? And if you tell a joke about the head of a corporation and your neighbor rats on you, you disappear in the middle of the night.
Yes, like you I am employed in cushy programming jobs that pay me very well for what I do (too well). I have no doubt that I would easily get another job if I chose to quit. However, not everyone is as lucky as us. If you took your first-world, rich-american blinkers off for a second you would see huge swathes of your own population not lucky enough to hold the same opinion as you, let alone places like China, which, strangely enough, is where all the production is.
When you stop thinking like a child who is upset that not every kid has the allowance you think his daddy ought to give him and start thinking like an adult instead, here’s what you’ll understand: a person’s labor is a product, same as a loaf of bread or an iPhone. It’s worth exactly what someone else is willing to pay for it, period. If I offer you a job at wages less than you’d prefer and you take it, it means you couldn’t find a better deal elsewhere — which means I’m paying you what you’re worth. If you want to earn more, then you need to make yourself more valuable.
Damned near every person on the planet would dearly love to be paid more — but that doesn’t mean they’re worth more. You’re worth what someone is willing to pay.
Of course I understand labour is a product. This is pretty-much the point i was trying to get across! As a product the cost of labour is determined by supply and demand. But (sorry!) since labour in China (or Mexico, or wherever) is so cheap, the western world needs to compete, and employers don’t have to be nice.
You love to say I’m stupid, but believe me, I understand your point of view.
And yet your solution to cheap foreign labor seems to be to slap even more regulations on those evil corporations, thus giving them even more incentive to move operations overseas. Onerous regulations are a big reason so much manufacturing left the U.S. It’s not all about wages.
We have an inside-the-country version of the same thing happening. Companies are fleeing states that tax and regulate them to death (California, New York, Illinois) and moving to states like Texas and Tennessee. As a resident of Tennessee, I encourage the big-government states to keep doing what they’re doing. We’ll happily accept the entrepreneurs they chase away.
I’m not saying I know the solution. It’s a hard problem to solve. But I don’t think libertarian ultra-capitalism is the answer; it just seems exacerbate the problems I tried to describe above.
Please explain exactly how allowing people to make voluntary exchanges without government coercion being involved makes the problem worse.
Because there is a power difference between the employers (i.e. the owners) and the employees. This causes inequality to increase.
I’m tired of responding to your lefty whining now, so I’ll just agree with you. Yes, you figured it out. Employers have all the power, employees have none, and by gosh, the government needs to step in there and take away the employers’ freedom to negotiate voluntary agreements so life will be fair.
Life in modern western society just sucks horribly, everyone is getting screwed, and thank goodness you figured it out. Now go watch some lefty documentary about the horribleness of life on your high-def TV, and be sure to tweet about it on your smartphone.
The first two rules from Vox Day (whose excellent book is called “SJWs Always Lie”):
SJWs always lie.
SJWs always double-down.
Tom, I’m enjoying your fruitless (ooh, so it’s non-vegetarian!) arguing with this silly SJW (which, by the way, I like to expand to “Social Justice Whiners” — as that’s a more-correct expansion). Great fun to read (and probably to write), but I believe you can’t ever get through to an SJW!
Social Justice Whiners. Perfect term. That’s what makes lefties so darned amusing: most people today have more opportunity, more material wealth, more access to advanced medical care, etc. than the vast majority of humans who ever lived … and yet to the SJWs, everything sucks and 99% of us are getting screwed.
Really enjoyed the book. Great insights. Although it can get tough slogging through the gamer universe setting, it was amazing how accurate and relevant it was. I kept thinking “too bad no one gave the chickensh*t bureaucrats at Missouri State U a copy of this before they all wet their pants and started resigning!” Then I remembered that they’re chickensh*t bureaucrats, so it really wouldn’t have mattered.
Cheers
Yes, I had to ‘gloss over’ some of the details and names in GamerGate — although I’ve read some hilarious (and very well written! ’cause it’s authors, and game developers and some very smart folks commenting) on Vox Day’s blog… It’s like a cocktail party at Mensa — only with mostly conservative and sharp-edged smart folks… SJWs not invited (although they do come and get laughed at and then skewered pretty elegantly!
I appreciate your interpretation of the people not taking statins. This is causing doctors to push statins even heavier and now doctors are even pushing statins at children of sic years of age and older. URL = http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/55135?xid=NL_breakingnews_2015-12-10&eun=g528893d0r .
“Statin use has become what appears to us to be a kind of religion, an unchallengeable article of faith among some doctors.”
“A kind of religion” is the apt term.
Hi Tom,
a couple of days ago one person asked me what was my opinion about the IMPROVE IT trial. He asked me: “Do you think it proves the lipid hypothesis?”
I didn’t know about the IMPROVE IT trial at the time (funded by Merck, BTW)
From the article: ” When added to statins, ezetimibe reduces LDL cholesterol levels by an additional 23 to 24%”
“at 1 year, the mean LDL cholesterol level was 69.9 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group and 53.2 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group”
From the article (data at 7 years, table 2):
-Death from any cause (statin): 15.3%
-Death from any cause (statin+ezetimibe): 15.4%
Lower cholesterol, slightly more deaths…
That’s the definitive proof that “lower is better“.
Merry Christmas!
Amazing, isn’t it?
Tom, I’ve learned a lot from your blog and always enjoy reading it.
A very happy Xmas to you and your family and though Chanuka has gone, a Happy Chanuka to Chareva.
Happy New year to you too.
Look forward to the next blog post, cheers!
Thank you. Happy Holidays to you and yours.
Tom, I’ve learned a lot from your blog and always enjoy reading it.
A very happy Xmas to you and your family and though Chanuka has gone, a Happy Chanuka to Chareva.
Happy New year to you too.
Look forward to the next blog post, cheers!
Thank you. Happy Holidays to you and yours.
Great post and even greater to see something I sent to you as a subject (nutrition info on beer!) I look forward to the comments each and every time! Happy Holidays to you and your family! I can hardly wait to tune in to this blog again in the New Year!
Great post and even greater to see something I sent to you as a subject (nutrition info on beer!) I look forward to the comments each and every time! Happy Holidays to you and your family! I can hardly wait to tune in to this blog again in the New Year!
That egal endorsed sandwich contains wheat and wurst “enriched” poisoned? wheat. I see nothing wrong if you don’t eat the bun.
That egal endorsed sandwich contains wheat and wurst “enriched” poisoned? wheat. I see nothing wrong if you don’t eat the bun.
good…If anything, people who “diet” tend to gain more weight over time, and studies show that dieting is a consistent predictor of future weight gain.Portion control (eating less) or counting calories can be very useful, for obvious reasons.
good…If anything, people who “diet” tend to gain more weight over time, and studies show that dieting is a consistent predictor of future weight gain.Portion control (eating less) or counting calories can be very useful, for obvious reasons.
The Eagles probably DO have some sort of award from Al Gore. They are the first team to fit their stadium with wind turbines. If you have a chance to see a game on TV at Lincoln Financial Field, what you see around the top of the stadium are the turbines. They’re also very proactive with recyling.
And they’re not recommending vegetables, so they’ve got it all going.
Just to make sure I understand this, the “Eagles” are installing devices that are known to kill raptors? Perfect. Maybe the Dolphins could use tuna nets behind their goalposts.
Cheers