The Miracle (?) of Homeopathy

One week ago I compared adults’ belief in psychic abilities to children’s belief in the Easter Bunny. But that is not the extent of these false notions. Another subject that adults love to believe in is miracle cures. It reflects a problem in the areas of discipline, not wanting to do the hard work or stick to a routine, and critical thinking, not wanting to accept evidence over stories. A good example of this is homeopathic medicines.

The theory dates back to the 1700s and is based on the idea that the body can be stimulated to cure itself by means of a like-cures-like reaction. In other words, substances that cause an adverse reaction in a healthy person can (supposedly) cause the body of a sick person to fight against the same condition.

Here is how WebMD explains it. “Red onion makes your eyes water. That’s why it’s used in homeopathic remedies for allergies.” Similarly, they may use poison ivy, white arsenic, crushed whole bees, and various herbs to evoke a beneficial effect.

“Homeopathic doctors weaken these ingredients by adding water or alcohol. Then they shake the mixture as part of a process called ‘potentization.’ They believe this step transfers the healing essence [from the ingredient to the liquid]. Homeopaths also believe that the lower the dose, the more powerful the medicine. In fact, many of these remedies [are so diluted that they] no longer contain any molecules of the original substance.”

The theory sounds a little like vaccinations where a small number of living or dead cells are injected to fire up the body’s immune system, but it’s not the same. Vaccines have something in them. Homeopathic medicines are diluted to the point where they contain only water, plus any contaminants the water carries. Therein lies the problem.

Last summer the FDA released a warning about one particular manufacturer saying, “Consumers and pets who use these products could have an increased risk of serious infection, that could require medical attention, due to the high levels of microbial contamination.” They warned three other companies for violations of (1) inadequate investigation of test results that found high levels of microorganisms, (2) lack of quality oversight of ingredients with potentially toxic effects, including snake venom, and (3) having insects in their ingredients.

The usual disclaimer applies to all these remedies: "Products labeled as homeopathic have not been approved by the FDA for any use and may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness and quality." 

It strains credibility that medicine containing not a single molecule of the active ingredient would be effective. The doctor who runs this site calls homeopathy “the ultimate fake,” giving a thorough explanation of his position. So if it does actually work, it must be a miracle. But what does the evidence show?

Here is a headline from Science Direct a few months ago: “A randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing antibody responses to homeopathic and conventional vaccines in university students.” Their conclusions from this well designed experiment were four-fold: 

• Homeopathic vaccines failed to elicit an antibody response.
• The antibody response to homeopathic vaccines was similar to placebo.
• In contrast, conventional vaccines showed a robust response.
• These findings suggest homeopathic vaccines should not be licensed.

How does a half-billion-dollar industry react to these facts? They continue to promote their products as “a safe, gentle, and natural system of healing that works with your body to relieve symptoms, restore itself, and improve your overall health. It is extremely safe to use, even with very small children and pets, has none of the side effects of many traditional medications, is very affordable, is made from natural substances, and is FDA regulated.”

Add "holistic" and "alternative" to that sales pitch and people will ignore facts and fall all over themselves trying to obtain some magical relief! Of course, with nothing in it, it is safe and has  no side effects, except possibly from contamination the manufacturer has overlooked. Here’s an idea: skip the trip to the health food store and feed your children and pets tap water. It’s basically the same thing, but even safer. 

Is Social Security Doomed?

This CNN article tells how Social Security is in big trouble – “Social Security won't be able to pay full benefits by 2035,” but there is more to learn here than the woes of the government-run retirement program.

It goes on to say that according to the latest annual report from trustees of the program, Social Security's trust funds will be empty by 2035. “The new projection doesn't mean retirees will no longer get checks in 16 years. But [unless Congress acts] the program will at that point only have enough revenue coming in to pay three-quarters of promised benefits through the end of 2093.” 

CNN rightly points out that “lawmakers have long punted on addressing Social Security problems, which would likely entail raising payroll taxes, curtailing benefits or some combination of both.” That is very true. There were articles and op-eds dating back to the mid-80s making this point only to be ignored by Congress. When anyone hints at changing Social Security, instead of working together to fix it, the opposite party tries, usually successfully, to use misinformation to terrorize voters with images of themselves or their parents starving on the streets.

This political "third rail" that is Social Security is not mentioned in the article, and here is where the story begins to go astray. The next two paragraphs read: 

“During the 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump said he wouldn't touch Social Security. He didn't believe he'd need to since his plan to boost economic growth to at least 4% would take care of Social Security's long-term solvency.

"The strong economy has not mitigated the entitlement's fiscal issues. And the federal government's deficit has grown, in part because of the 2017 Republican tax cuts.”

With no reference to the political sensitivity, they seem to blame the President for not taking a stronger stance. That he has a lot of company was omitted.

Earlier in the story they admit that the 2035 date is “one year later than last year's report projected.” So the strong economy may have had some impact on the situation. In fact, I wrote in 2016 that the trust fund projection was 15 years at that time. Now, 3 years later, it’s projected at 16 years. That’s a 4-year difference.

The strong economy has not solved the problem, but "mitigate" means to reduce or diminish. There is some strong evidence of such mitigation.

Why, in the same paragraph, jump from a discussion of Social Security problems to a critique of tax cuts? Those two are not related. Social Security is funded by a portion of the FICA tax that was not changed. 

They then return to the subject with, “Social Security's total cost is expected to exceed its total income in 2020…. This is two years later than projected in last year's report.” Again, in their own words, this sounds like some degree of mitigation.

The story then digresses to Medicare, which has even a worse funding problem. That change probably explains why a big picture of Senator Sanders is placed right below the headline about Social Security. There can be no other explanation. Senator Sanders has been mute on Social Security.

On the other hand, this MarketWatch story gives a much more objective treatment of the Social Security trustee report. It also says that “there would be sufficient income coming in to pay 80% of scheduled benefits” rather than three-quarters and does not try to associate the President or tax cuts with the problem.

The obvious lesson is that Social Security continues to be in trouble with little hope of a short-term fix but is a little better off than it was a few years ago. The second is that the various media outlets manage to blend in their political biases by tone, by choice of what to report and what to leave out, by adding unrelated side comments and by shading the facts. This is just a single example of a single media outlet, but it is no wonder so many people, including those collecting Social Security, have such a poor understanding of the program (and of so many other issues). Skepticism and critical thinking are our only defense.

To get the full story, enter Social Security in the search box in the upper right to read all previous posts with Social Security in the title.

Short Subjects

Gluten-free dog food: There are a couple of bad reasons for buying gluten-free dog food and only one good one. But first a little background.

“Gluten is the term for proteins found in wheat, rye, barley and oats. It has glue-like properties, allowing food to stay together. Celiac disease occurs in people with a genetic predisposition and results in damage to the small intestine because of gluten sensitivity. It makes digestion difficult for the affected population.”

The first bad reason is the same one explaining why people buy gluten-free food for themselves. The same website that supplied that explanation above goes on to say, “If you purchase a grain-free dog food, that generally means it’s also gluten-free. A manufacturer might label a grain-free food as also being gluten-free, but that’s marketing for the uninformed.” The only reason they would do that is to sell more product by driving an imaginary competitive advantage. (It might allow them to charge more, too.)

The second bad reason is to assume a gluten-free diet would benefit the pet. “Most dogs do not suffer from celiac disease, so a gluten-free diet is not necessary.” The sole exception is Irish setters that may have inherited a gluten intolerance, but this includes just a few Irish setters. 

The only good reason would be if a dog had celiac disease, confirmed by a vet with blood tests and a biopsy of the intestine. This would be a rare situation even if Irish setters were very common. To make sure I checked for the 10 most popular dog breeds according to the American Kennel Club. Irish setters didn’t make the list.

Then why do we see so many ads and associated material for gluten-free dog food? – The same reason we see gluten-free posted on so much people food – “marketing for the uninformed.”

Workplace Wellness Programs: These became all the rage over the past decade or so, especially within large companies. This website echoes the universal sentiment:

“Considering the improvement to the well-being and productivity of a healthy workplace, and the amount of time we spend at our workplaces, it makes sense to foster workplace wellness programs. Not only does it affect the output of team members, but it makes them feel good in all areas of life—including work.”

Having a suite of such programs makes an employer appear to be progressive and caring while making a wise investment. “One of the signs of a top-notch employer will be a workplace wellness program.”

Top-notch or not, a program that doesn’t work is not a good use of time and money, and according to this NPR health report, that might be the case. Workplace wellness programs, now an $8 billion industry, have received conflicting marks over the years from various studies, but none have been carefully designed enough to rely on – until now. 

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Harvard conducted the first large-scale, peer-reviewed study with a randomized controlled trial design. “They published their findings [last] Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA.” Details of the study can be found by following the link.

In the end, participants self-reported healthier behavior than those not enrolled, such as exercising more or managing their weight better. “But the efforts did not result in differences in health measures, such as improved blood sugar or glucose levels, how much employers spent on health care or how often employees missed work. Their job performance and how long they stuck around in their jobs also seemed unaffected, the researchers say.”

Since a benefit given is nearly impossible to take back, the large number of companies that have them will be forced to assume some hidden return on investment, but the latest scientific data does not really back that up.

Death Threats: Now that the Internet allows people to make death threats without leaving the comfort of their homes or even on the go from their phones, there seem to be more of them – and for more and more trivial reasons. Just last week an Atlanta meteorologist received death threats and other “inappropriate messages” for interrupting the Masters golf tournament to update viewers on tornado watches in the area. Of course a watch is not as serious as a warning, but it’s far more serious than watching golf on TV – except to some who accused the meteorologist of being pretentious and wasting their time. Perspective, anyone?

Here Comes the Easter Bunny

In a couple of days the Easter Bunny will visit homes of young children across America delivering baskets of treats. According to this source, the origin of the Easter Bunny may be traced to “early pagan celebrations” of “springtime renewal of life and fertility as well as the goddess of dawn and spring, Eastre." Some of these celebrations and myths were adopted and modified by early missionaries to make it easier to win over converts.

Like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny is soon relegated to the dustbin of childhood stories as kids grow up, mature and develop the ability to easily separate fantasy from reality, no matter how appealing and comforting those fantasies might be. Unfortunately, many of their parents persist in beliefs that are equally outlandish long after they have grown up. Somehow the will to believe is so strong that it defies reality.

I am reminded of this when I saw the recent Pew Research report on the number of Americans drawn to “New Age” beliefs, particularly that 41% of adults believe in psychics. Now, I’ve written about psychics before, giving examples of how their annual predictions are consistently wrong, how those who claim to have the psychic power have been discredited again and again, and how they have been convicted for defrauding people. But no matter how often someone explains the techniques of hot and cold readings, no matter how often psychics are embarrassed or proven wrong, the fantasy survives and believers continue to be swindled.

The latest attempt to dissuade believers (February 25) comes from this rather long (21-minute), but quite amusing video from John Oliver. The subtitle on YouTube is “Psychics may seem harmless and fun on TV, but they can make a lot of money by exploiting vulnerable people.” In fact, it’s a $2.2 billion industry. 

This video has had almost 7 million views, and you would think the word would get out. However, when you turn on daytime TV or use a search engine to find out more about psychic powers, people selling the idea that these powers are real overwhelmingly dominate the information posted. As is the case in most social media situations, misinformation overpowers the truth serving up enough credulous customers to keep about 100,000 self-employed psychics in business.

When magicians appear on the stage or on television, they describe what they do as illusions. They are admittedly lying to the audience, trying to fool everyone with misdirection and slight of hand. When the show is over, people go home understanding that it was all a trick but wondering how they did it – what mechanisms, mirrors, technology or fancy moves were involved? What didn’t I see?

When psychics appear, they expect everyone to believe that they can predict the future or can communicate with the dead. When the show is over, people go home, sometimes in shock or with renewed grief, thinking it was real. This is dishonest on the part of the performer and the height of gullibility on the part of the audience. They don’t try to figure out what tricks were involved. They believe!

That’s why magicians are so good at debunking psychics, but how many times will it take? And how will America survive when 4 out of 10 voters are so easily duped into believing in a notion no more real than the Easter Bunny. (Note: Politicians and the news media don’t call it illusion or misdirection either, although it sometimes is.)

Another Tax Day

With the beginning of a new election cycle there has been much talk about another change to what politicians refer to as the healthcare system. It is really just another modification to health insurance. It may improve access to healthcare as more people can afford the insurance, and it may restrict access as more doctors and medical students decide it’s not worth the hassle. Some critics complain that a government-run system will put most of the health insurance industry out of business. As usual the two sides have opposite opinions.

Since today is “tax day,” the deadline for filing personal income tax, I would like to make an alternative proposal. If the government is going to put any industry out of business, it should be the tax preparation business. Think about it; what value does it add to our lives or to society?

Now I have nothing personal against paid tax preparers. Some of my friends and relatives are in that business. And as one site that solicits tax preparers points out: “Tax preparation is BIG business employing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly small business, but with [total] estimated revenues last year of $11 billion. They are also recession resistant as every American is legally required to submit an income tax return.”

Do we get anything tangible and worthwhile from that $11 billion we spend each year? No. We get someone to follow complex rules and add up numbers for us to keep us out of trouble. That complexity is imposed by a government that refuses to simplify the system to a point where everyone could do it for themselves. (We are also required to pay sales tax in most states, but they don’t ask us to stand in the checkout line and calculate it ourselves – and then penalize us if we get it wrong!)

Some will recall back in 2009 several appointees to the Obama cabinet were found to have had tax problems. “Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama's nominee to become Health and Human Services secretary, said in a letter obtained by the Associated Press that she made ‘unintentional errors’ on her taxes and has corrected her returns from three different years.” Obama’s original nominees for HHS secretary and for chief performance officer “withdrew from consideration over tax issues.” Timothy Geithner, who became Treasury secretary, had to pay $42,702 in additional taxes and interest for tax years 2001 to 2004 around the time of his nomination. How user-friendly is a system that can trip up a potential Treasury secretary? 

The whole setup is flawed. It would be like having to hire someone to ride in your car and warn you to slow down because the speed limit signs were too complicated for someone without special training to understand. If that were the case, people would scream until the DOT fixed the problem so we could use our money for something more productive or enjoyable.  But when it comes to taxes, everyone likes their special little benefit, and the complexity persists.

Meanwhile the $11-billion industry adds about as much value to society as being forced by law to hire someone to shovel snow off your sidewalk in the summer. The money buys you a service to unload an unpleasant chore. But that chore is made necessary only by a totally fabricated set of regulations driven by a multitude of diverse special interests, most of which could easily be eliminated if lawmakers had the guts to do it.

Child Abuse Awareness

April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month. One objective is to raise awareness of child abuse issues. Certainly this includes instilling fear in children to promote one’s ego or enforce one’s authority. But doesn’t instilling fear in a child to promote one’s political agenda have the same detrimental effect?

Take for example the incident a few weeks ago when a number of young children were driven to Dianne Feinstein office to persuade her to vote in favor of the Green New Deal. Most of the media attention was on the Senator trying to dodge the questions with little notice to the state of the children. They were afraid and panicky – and they didn’t get that way on their own. It likely came from parents more concerned about the environment than children’s immediate mental health and wellbeing.

One young girl says, “We have come to a point where our earth is dying!” Isn’t planting an idea like that in a child’s mind and encouraging it to grow also a form of abuse?

 A similar situation arises from pictures of polar bears. The Weather Channel headline reads: “Heartbreaking Photos Show Stranded Polar Bears Floating on Ice.” A quote from an Italian photographer (not a scientist) follows: “I believe the survival of this species on high arctic islands is strictly related to sea ice," although he “actually found more bears than he expected.”

The fact is that polar bears are at home in and around water. “Polar bears are pretty strong swimmers – probably the strongest of all the land-based predators. They will spend much of their time in swimming and thus they are sometimes referred to as marine mammals.” Most such pictures show them on one of many ice floes looking stranded, but they are able to swim 60 to 70 miles in open water. “The longest distance covered by any polar bear in swimming is about 427 miles…. She swam for up to 9 days continuously through the Beaufort Sea...” Stranded, indeed!

Another source questions the fuss about them being endangered when the “polar bear populations have been increasing overall since the 1970s.” The fuss, of course, is that polar bears are an example of charismatic macro-fauna. They look sweet and cuddly (from a distance) and, like orphan children in those charity solicitations, easily tug at our hearts, encouraging us to turn off our critical thinking. This effect is strong on children who can put pressure on their parents to support various causes. Isn’t such manipulation also abuse?

Finally, school shootings are a terrible blight on the country, but does that justify the number of children who are scared to go to school? The LA Times refers to the “prevalence of school shootings,” as schools lock doors, arm teachers, conduct drills and come up with all kinds of countermeasures to what is really a fairly rare event – despite anxious news coverage. Meanwhile politicians play on the fear to renew calls for additional gun restrictions.

There are over 132,000 schools in the US with about 55 million students.

The average number of school shootings per year since 2000 (including last year, a statistical anomaly) has been 36.6 resulting in about 20.2 deaths per year (not all students) according to the CDC. They add that among youth aged 5-18, “between 1% and 2% of [homicide] deaths happen on school grounds or on the way to or from school.”

The full CDC report (Table 6: Number of deaths from selected causes, by age: United States, 2016) gives more information. The age breaks in the table are different, stopping at 14 rather than 18, but it allows for a reasonable estimate of deaths from other causes to compare to the 20.2 shown above: Flu, 356; Motor Vehicle Accidents, 1455; Accidental discharge of firearms, 74; Accidental drowning and submersion, 708.

The chance of a child being killed in any other situation is 50 to 100 times greater than by a firearm in school, at a school activity or traveling to or from school. Many other threats are also greater. Yet this is what we scare our kids about. Maybe it’s time to start ignoring the theatrics of the news media and teach our children to exercise some critical thinking and perspective.

Maybe also it’s time to extend the definition of child abuse to include terrifying children, intentionally or unintentionally, with unreasonable fear in order to push political agendas.

Where the Money Goes

An email arrived last week in my inbox that I had trouble believing. If it had not come from a company I was already doing business with, I’d have sent it straight into the spam bin.

The email was from one of my credit card companies suggesting that I “make tax season a little brighter. Simply use your [credit card] to pay for your federal or state payments online and you’ll be rewarded.¹^,² Not only is the process fast and secure, you’ll earn valuable points you can redeem for travel, gifts and more." (Footnotes say that only some states accept credit card payment and that additional fees may apply.)

There was a time when financial advisors would urge, even beg, people to use their tax refunds to pay down their high interest credit card debt. Now we get the opposite; pay the taxes on time with the credit card, so instead of paying interest and penalties to the government for late payments, we open up the possibility of paying interest and penalties to the card company. This seemed pretty crazy until I noticed some of the other financial decisions happening across the country.

This recent USA Today piece tells a scary story. Many Americans have gotten into the habit of ignoring the total price of things they buy. If they believe they can fit the monthly payments into their budgets, they go ahead with no consideration of overall cost, including interest on the loan. 

The particular example here is car buying. In one expert’s opinion, "Easy credit and longer repayment terms have coaxed many consumers into buying more car than they can really afford," causing car debt to reach an all time high of $1.2 trillion. 

One banker remarked that his company limits auto loans to 72 months, but some competitors offer 84-month loans. That seems a little strange as the average length of car ownership hovers around 80 months. It’s more like renting a car than really owning one (and owing more than it’s worth for almost the entire time). But this mindset is to look at the monthly payment, to ignore the regularly increasing interest rates and to buy as much car as fits the budget. So people can be easily drawn to the midsize SUV rather than a midsize car with a price difference of almost $13,000, just increase the length of the loan.  Meanwhile GM is forced to close a small car assembly plant in Ohio due to fewer buyers. (Then the price of gasoline goes up, and everyone  starts complaining! Whoops, behavior has consequences.)

What most don’t realize at the time of purchase is that the car is collateral for the loan. One downturn in the economy or one temporary job loss for any other reason could mean losing the car no matter how faithfully payments were made up to that point. An example from the article tells of a 26-year-old, who lost her job at as a legal researcher and was unemployed for two months. She went into default and her 2010 Chevrolet Equinox was repossessed. That is not an isolated case. “More than 7 million Americans are now at least three months delinquent on their auto loan payments, the benchmark for many lenders to trigger a repossession.”

The behavior continues. Credit cards offer deals to help you earn “valuable” points, while banks and finance companies offer longer and longer loan durations to keep payments down (and their profits up). Everyone thinks in terms of installments rather than total cost. When the shocking news comes that you can’t buy a retirement on those same terms, it’s too late. The consequences of poor economic understanding coupled with poor critical thinking will be devastating. Everyone will be looking to the government for a bailout, a government with the same attitude of buying now and borrowing to make up the difference with no concern about the future.

Unintended Consequences

So many times we hear of laws or regulations having unintended consequences, and though unintended, in hindsight many of them seem totally predictable. I was reminded of this when I heard politicians in Washington suggest that the voting age be lowered to sixteen.

The whole argument as to whether sixteen-year-olds have the maturity and judgment to vote is a good debate for elsewhere. After all, the eighteen-year-olds who are allowed, even encouraged, to vote cannot legally buy alcohol. They may not buy lottery tickets in a few states. And here the USA Today advocates, “Raise the federal minimum legal age for tobacco, e-cigarette purchases to 21.” Furthermore, since 2009 “you must be 21 years of age to get a credit card in your own name, unless you have a cosigner or can show proof of steady income.” All these laws and proposals speak to the maturity and judgment of 18 year-olds.

Note: The voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War on the somewhat skewed reasoning that if you are old enough to go to war, you are old enough to vote – as if following orders and fighting in combat require the same skills as voting. But what of lowering it again to sixteen?

Implied with lowering the voting age is also lowering the age of majority, that is, when you are considered an adult. One of the problems comes back to that question of the draft. Along comes the USA Today again with a suggestion to “Include women in Selective Service registration.” Would that mean boys and girls must register when they reach their 16^th birthday? (Of course, they would not be considered boys and girls anymore, but men and women.)

Another issue is the protection sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds enjoy in courts and criminal proceedings. Debates sometimes break out over whether certain juvenile criminals should be tried as adults. Should they be eligible for the death penalty in states that allow it? Police don’t release names, and the press doesn't publish the names of minors involved in crimes. With such a new law it could be argued that they are adults and must forfeit all this special consideration.

Yet another issue would be activities and purchases other than alcohol and nicotine products where normally an adult must sign for the youth. This might include medical procedures and vaccinations, high school field trips, youth sports, legal contracts and a host of other transactions. How would all these parental permission issues be affected?

If some of these examples seem extreme, consider the college orientation briefing I attended with one of my sons years ago. While they were explaining how parents could afford all the fees and tuition to send their children to college, they added that to see how the students were doing the parent had to deal directly with them. Since they were adults, some privacy regulations prohibited the school from sharing report cards with parents (those same parents whom they assumed would be responsible for paying). Imagine having such privacy restraints applied to a report card for a junior in high school!

I’m sure there are other considerations that I have missed, but predicting, or at least anticipating, unintended consequences is a good exercise in critical thinking.

April Fools Day

Usually no one wants to behave like a fool. But a little-considered fact is that in feudal times the court jester, or fool, was not only a performer; but because he was considered a fool, he was the only one who could tell hard truths to the king without fear of losing his head, literally. (See King Lear for examples.)

Accordingly, here are some things to consider that are often ignored or overlooked.

I recently heard a kind, caring person say with respect to ridding an area of beavers causing damage, “You shouldn’t do that; that would be messing with nature” and another said something similar about controlled burns in a park prairie. Without messing with nature, we would not exist. The human race would have died off without meat by killing animals, without fruit and vegetables by clearing fields for farming and keeping the pests away. We have always been messing with nature in order to adapt and survive. Even nature messes with nature in the sense that cheetahs kill antelope and lightning causes burning to allow for renewal. We shouldn’t unnecessarily mess with nature. That would be a waste, and waste is bad. But to make such a blanket statement seems foolish.

Consider this: In 1985 the first Blockbuster video store opened. At its peak there were nearly 9100 of them, providing jobs for over 84,000 people. Today there is only one in the world, and I’m sure they are not depending on support from corporate headquarters. In less than 35 years an entire industry was created and all but disappeared, and no one misses it. Just to stay in business for that long they had to transition from videotapes to DVDs. The story serves as an excellent example of how quickly the world is changing, and it’s only getting faster. It reinforces my argument that America cannot survive if Americans refuse to change, continue to behave in the same ways they have in the past, particularly with respect to making unwise decisions and choices in the 5 key dimensions.

This website asks, “Could the type of shampoo you use actually CAUSE Alzheimer’s, or even worse, cancer?" The site is called trustworthy fitness, but it appears to be anything but trustworthy as it also advertises a free one-minute tummy-toning workout – as in spot reducing, which has been shown over and over to be totally bogus. But back to the shampoos – If you search for "shampoos and Alzheimer’s" on the Internet the first page of the browser shows 9 links to pages passing along the dreadful news about how toxic the chemicals in shampoos and skin creams are. 

Only a single one has an opposing view, a YouTube video from a McGill University Professor of Chemistry examining the science and alleviating any concerns about those chemicals. In the only study he found, researchers exposed cells extracted from rats’ brains to a preservative used in the leading shampoos, and found that they didn’t grow properly. Gee, that’s pretty scary stuff, if you assume your brain is so similar to a rat’s, and if you plan to expose your brain cells directly to the chemical! In summary, there is nothing to this claim; it’s completely bogus. But the Internet search leads to the truth only 10% of the time. Critical thinking anyone?

So have a happy April Fools Day, and don’t believe everything you see, hear or read – not just today, but every day and for the rest of your life. By the way, your shoelace is untied 😀.