Flashback – Why So Much Bad Advice

[This message was originally posted over six years ago, but since then the dynamic of bad information driving out the good has only gotten stronger with more fake news, advertising weasel words, political spinning, echo-chamber exchanges, media bias and health fads without any scientific basis.]

Why do bad ideas and bad advice seem to persist in a society with easy access to good science? One reason may be the tendency to cling to beliefs then look for evidence to support them, instead of accepting the conclusions of well-designed experiments. In his book The Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt proposes that feelings and emotions come first, and that most reasoning works to justify rather than to test beliefs, that our “intuitions tend to drive our later reasoning.”  John Stuart Mill presented the same thought more than 150 years ago:  (paraphrasing) the more you argue, even while making clear, rational points, the deeper others dig in to protect long-held beliefs. Adding to the sad situation are the effects of scientists and doctors who would rather become famous as authors or TV stars by promoting popular beliefs than risk challenging them, as they should, with the truth.

One case that comes to mind is the persistent belief that artificial sweeteners are dangerous. Simple research is reassuring, but the belief is ingrained in our culture. The National Cancer Institute states clearly and unequivocally: “There is no clear evidence that the artificial sweeteners available commercially in the United States are associated with cancer risk in humans.” The Mayo Clinic’s view is that “there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the U.S. cause cancer or other serious health problems.” So who do Americans trust, these authoritative sources or a Facebook friend who watched some guy in a halloween costume on YouTube with scary stories?

Likewise folk remedies of all kinds continue to circulate. One longstanding belief is that magnetism has magical healing powers, leading people to buy bracelets, insoles and other magnetic devices. This is odd because over the past 15 years the FTC has ordered Magnetic Therapeutic Technologies, among others, to stop advertising magnets as a cure for numerous diseases or even as a pain reliever. No credible evidence exists of healing powers, and none can be claimed in their advertising. One recent well-designed test of such devices confirms this fact concluding: “Wearing a magnetic wrist strap or a copper bracelet did not appear to have any meaningful therapeutic effect, beyond that of a placebo, for alleviating symptoms and combating disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis.” Does that slow the sale of magnetic shoe insoles? – Not for people who don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, a persuasive ad or a celebrity endorsement.

It’s your money to use as you please. You can save it for college and retirement, give it away to companies selling you magnetic health devices, or even flush it down the toilet. Two of those choices make the same amount of sense, but as Paul Simon sang, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Social Security Myths

People keep saying and posting on social media thoughts on Social Security that are dead wrong. These myths and misconceptions have been going around for years, and apparently too few people take the initiative to look for the facts. Instead they express righteous indignation against an imagined injustice that they can't control. Their anger and frustration are amplified by cowardly politicians eager to feed into the fear in order to blame the other side rather than to do anything about it . 

First: It’s my money. I paid in, and I expect to get it back. (Wrong)

Second: Congress raided the Social Security trust fund to pay for their pet projects and wars. (Wrong)

The concept behind Social Security is that the government collects money from working people, salaries and wages, to pay retirees at a set rate. Here is the way the government explains it: “Under a pay-as-you-go program…, the taxes of each generation are used to pay for benefits to prior generations and are not used to advance fund their own benefits.” The money you paid in goes to pay someone else; it's not set aside for you.

Previously, there were far fewer retirees than workers, so SSA collected more than they paid out. Surplus funds were (by law) invested in government bonds. Like any other investment in bonds, they accumulated interest. By a recent estimate, Social Security earns $80 million per year from the interest on this investment.

That surplus is sometimes referred to as a trust fund, giving the false impression that they are holding your money in a separate account to fund your retirement. As shown above, this is clearly not the case. Money collected this month is paid out to retirees this month with any excess invested. As more people retire and live longer, the surplus has gotten smaller. Beginning very soon there will be no surplus. Social Security will begin cashing in those bonds to cover monthly payments. 

By 2032 the surplus is expected to be used up. The only money available to pay out will be the money collected. That amount will cover only about 75% of the set rate. For many years politicians have avoided trying to fix this problem, because anyone who mentions it is accused of stealing from old people, instead of trying to address a known problem.

What about raiding the mythical trust fund? The reason a government (or any other entity) issues bonds is to borrow money from investors. They can use that money in any way they wish. There has been no raiding or stealing. They treat money borrowed from Social Security the same as any borrowed from any other bondholder. They spend it. Otherwise they wouldn't borrow it in the first place! As mentioned above, they also must pay interest on the money borrowed - that's the opposite of raiding. 

At times the government has changed the way it accounts for Social Security collections. Sometimes they were counted separately and sometimes they were included with all other tax revenues. This affects only how the deficit is calculated and reported. It has nothing to do with how much is available to pay out but has been misrepresented as raiding. CBS News debunked this myth back in 2012, but did anyone listen?

Furthermore, the agreed payout can be and has been unilaterally changed many times in the past. A cost of living adjustment was added in 1975. The month when that adjustment was applied changed in 1983. Part of the payment became taxable in 1984. The age for full retirement was adjusted in 1983. The contribution rate has grown since its inception and the cap changes every year with inflation. 

That means the government can change the rules if necessary. Here is how the Social Security Administration explains it. “We use the term obligation in lieu of the term liability because liability generally indicates a contractual or legal obligation. No contractual or legal obligation exists for paying full scheduled benefits on time once the trust fund reserves are depleted. In fact, current law requires that, when the trust fund reserves are depleted, benefits paid should match income received.”

It’s not your money. There was no raiding. There is no firm promise to pay, and it was never meant as the sole source of retirement income. Look it up!

(Also, for a full explanation of whether Social Security is an entitlement follow this link.)

Flashback – Perspective and Gas Prices

[In the fall of 2011 I published a piece with that title. At that time, eight and a half years ago, people were looking forward to prices dropping to about where they are today. The point of the discussion was how short memories are, how easy it is to complain when things change for the worse and how quickly we take benefits for granted. Here it is again for your consideration.]

A couple of days ago the AP published an article on lower gas prices. The price has dropped significantly since summer and some people were amazed and thrilled to find prices below $3 a gallon.  If things go well some parts of the country could see prices as low as $2.50 in the near future (or not).

What does this have to do with perspective? To me it’s a reverse example. Here we have people very happy with prices below $3 and possibly headed toward $2.50, whereas not too long ago we were hearing cries of pain and anguish at prices as high as $2.50. But compared to $4.00 it seems like a bargain. People tend to have short memories and get used to things as they are, reacting with some discomfort to changes. In this example it is joy rather than discomfort, but because we have experienced such economic and technological growth and improvements throughout our lives, our expectations are set and any loss or reduction causes discomfort.

Perspective should remind us that how things are today is not the way they always were. Gas was not always three or four dollars a gallon, but televisions were not always digital, with 50-inch screens, surround sound, 200 channels, or even in color (and we had to get out of our chair to change the channels). Less than one hundred years ago most Americans had to live without radios, a second car, a washing machine, a vacuum cleaner, in-door plumbing, Social Security or any expected retirement, Medicare or any health insurance. More recently people got along fine without home computers, dishwashers, smartphones, moon roofs, garage door openers and home air conditioning. But it’s easy to take these things for granted and feel we could not live without them, when, in fact, people lived for all of history without them. Recognition of this makes it easy to understand how Greek citizens can march in protest over loss of benefits while their country teeters on the edge of bankruptcy.

Perspective is about values, values that keep our wants from morphing into needs (and needs into rights), values that remind us what is vital vs what we can really live without. It’s nice to see the price of gas turn around, but it should also remind us to be grateful for what we have and to consult our core values when we decide how to spend the extra cash. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it very bluntly in his 1964 lecture at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies: “Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually.” I think he was talking, in part, about perspective, and I wonder if we have been progressing or declining since then.

Different Cultures, Different Rules

A story about an incident in 2006 is suddenly getting a lot of attention on social media. An American woman temporarily working in Iceland “went from feeling a lump in her breast to getting checked out and assured that it was benign in the space of a single day, and for $3.” She posted the story of her experience on Twitter.

This gets many people stirred up, asking: Why can’t we do this in the United States? Some politicians think we can and are promising changes, but the comparisons are not as straightforward as we’d like them to be.

Iceland is a small, island nation in the North Atlantic with a population of about 350,000. For comparison, the city of Minneapolis has a population about 425,000. The entire country is smaller than many American cities. 

But it’s not just a matter of scale. Taking it a step further, that population is very homogenous. About 91% of the residents of Iceland are Icelandic citizens and only 16% are foreign-born. Unlike the US, the population is concentrated. Ninety-nine percent live in urban areas and 60% live very close to the capital. Furthermore, about 72% belonged to the same religion, the state Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland.

Back to our comparison example – where Iceland has homogeneity, Minneapolis has diversity. Its population is approximately 64% white from various heritages, 19% African American, 10% Hispanic and 7% various other ethnicities. It is the home of more than 50 denominations and religions.

How important is this homogeneity in the smooth operation of a more socially oriented society? Denmark believes it is vital to maintain the order and necessary shared values. “Beginning at the age of 1, [mostly Muslim immigrant] ‘ghetto children’ must be separated from their ‘ghetto parents’ for 25 hours per week for mandatory instruction in so-called ‘Danish values,’ which includes learning about the language and the traditions of Christmas and Easter, The New York Times reported in July 2018.”

(Again for comparison Denmark is about 35% larger than Maryland in area with about 5% fewer people. These are much smaller countries whose people share a common background and history.)

But there is no free lunch and no $3 health service without a huge subsidy. Here is a simplified comparison to make the point.

After a $5,145 deduction, Icelanders pay 36.94% of income up to about $85,000 and 46.24% on income above that. On top of that is a value added tax (VAT) of 24% on most goods and services, but a few categories are subject to a reduced rate of 11% (e.g. food, hotels, newspapers, books, and utilities).

Everyone in Iceland pays at least at the same level as the highest tax bracket in the US, 36.94% compared to 37%. They don’t “soak the rich;” they take it from everyone. On the other hand, their corporate tax rate is among the lowest.

In Minneapolis a single taxpayer owes no more than 17% on the first $85,000 after a standard deduction of $12,200 and pays about 8% sales tax, but not on food. (Sales tax and VAT are not identical, but the economic burden of VAT falls on the final consumer.)

Using those numbers, a single taxpayer earning only $20,000 in the US pays $780, whereas for the same situation in Iceland the tax bill would be roughly $5,500. When the money is spent, it is taxed again at a rate up to 16% more.

On another point, access to doctors is slightly better. Iceland has a physician ratio of 3.62 doctors per 1000. In the US it’s 2.3 doctors per 1000.

These and many other considerations are ignored by those who want to make simplistic comparisons, comparisons that in reality are light-years away from apples to apples. It would be nice to have all the benefits and not have to make any of the sacrifices, not have to adapt to an entire new set of values and expectations, not have to live within a completely different culture. (The US cannot even agree to have one official language!) But there are no simple answers.

Flashback - Letting the Media Scare Us Over and Over

[The news and entertainment cycles are so rapid that nostalgia no longer requires a long memory. What was scary or hot just a few years ago has moved on to be replaced by the latest craze, panic or breaking story. It was little more than twenty years ago that the world was stressing over Y2K – what would happen when the computers thought the year was 1900? Since then people have worried about frankenfish, the genetically engineered salmon raised on farms, and the rejection of net neutrality leading to a crisis that never happened, along with many other manufactured fears. 

Every Christmas parents stress about getting access to the “hot new” toy so their kids wouldn’t be disappointed, but where are all the Tickle Me Elmo dolls today? 

Likewise the worldwide epidemics come and go. Just a couple of years ago it was Ebola coming from Africa. Today it’s Coronavirus from China. And don't forget SARS.

One such flash-in-the-pan concern was over a product vilified by some celebrity chef as pink slime, as I wrote back in 2012.]

Now we get the case of “pink slime,” a derogatory term referring to, and gathering support against, the use of beef scraps to supplement ground beef sold in stores, a practice that has been going on for years with no ill effects. Why do people stoop to such name-calling? Either they have no valid arguments or they are trying to catch us up in an emotional reaction to promote their particular cause (or as this news article calls it, a crusade). Who thinks about the jobs lost? Why are people who speak out against waste in other areas silent on this issue? Why would Kroger and the other grocery chains buckle under the pressure of these crusades against a product that is not harmful, less expensive and less fatty, that they have been selling for the last 20 years? This hurts many and helps no one.

The uproar about the coloring ingredient in Coke and Pepsi that I addressed on March 19, [2012] had a similar dynamic - get people all riled up to rally behind a cause or complaint based on poor or sometimes even deceptive evidence. The problem is that with social media it is now far easier to start a crusade or get people fired up about an issue using an emotional appeal. Before you know it governments are banning products or ingredients or the companies that sell them are back-pedaling due to the bad press on Facebook or Twitter. Most consumers have little formal science education in such areas as human biology or experimental design, but they loudly express their “concerns” based on unreliable information on the Internet. The masses are howling, the ringleaders are name calling, and we are moving closer and closer to a kind of mob rule where we end up paying the extra costs, enduring the unintended consequences, and having our choices limited.

In this fast moving society one subject does not stay in the news long, so the following week, "concerns" arose over the use of BPA in food packaging.  At this rate we could be banning or otherwise losing access to 50 products a year based not on science but on public outcry!

Along similar lines a different article tells about how old photos were intentionally used by the press to influence public perception in the Florida shooting case that has sparked so many protests. The article suggests that this type of manipulation by selective presentation of pictures and videos has become common practice in the media. Another article sheds additional doubt on the accuracy and completeness of some news reports.

So my question is, when are we going to stop being influenced, frightened and manipulated, and start thinking for ourselves? One way leads to reasonable outcomes, the other to the consequences of chaotic, knee-jerk reactions to each new manufactured crisis or irresponsible crusade. 

Opposing Views on Alternative Medicine

The Association to Protect the Sick of Pseudoscientific Therapies (APETP in Spanish) was formed by victims of those therapies along with scientists, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, computer scientists, lawyers, and many other credentialed health professionals to fight against the rise of unproven alternative medical practices in Europe. They recently published a manifesto to “raise awareness in the media about the problem of pseudo-therapies and the position of the scientific community against them.”

They feel strongly about the dangers and deception of these practices. “More than 150 pseudo-therapies have been identified as being in use throughout Europe. Thousands of citizens’ lives depend on this being prevented. In fact, according to a recent research, 25.9 % of Europeans have used pseudo-therapies last year. In other words, 192 million patients have been deceived.”

They do not list all 150 in the manifesto, but summarize a few. “Homeopathy is the best known pseudo-therapy, but it is not the only one nor the most dangerous one. Others, such as acupuncture, reiki, German New Medicine, iridology, biomagnetism, orthomolecular therapy and many more are gaining ground.” They claim that these are not only unproven, but they distract patients from seeking professional help when desperately needed. They are calling for legislation in countries around the world to combat their spread. 

In the US, practitioners of these therapies are not allowed to advertise or otherwise imply that their products can “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or any other medical condition,” but the government has not considered consumer protection legislation. In fact, the FDA and other agencies are easier on these products and practices than they are on prescription medicine in terms of testing requirements for safety and efficacy.

Meanwhile, from halfway around the world comes another example of what that group is fighting against. 

In response to the Coronavirus outbreak and WHO’s warnings, a branch of the Indian government, the Ministry of AYUSH, issued an advisory based on traditional medicine.

The first part of the release gives the typical good advice on how to behave in this environment: maintain personal hygiene; wash hands frequently; drink enough water; avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth; avoid close contact with sick people; stay home when sick; cover your face if you cough or sneeze; and use a mask in public places.

But next they recommend “ways and means of prevention of Coronavirus infection through Homoeopathy” and use of a variety of Unani medicines for “symptomatic management of Coronavirus infection.” (This would be illegal in the US but it is government-sponsored in India.)

Unani medicine, not common in the West, is “a form of alternative medicine, which is based on the belief that the human body contains four humors, and that imbalance of these four humors is the cause of disease,…created by the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, which later spread to the Islamic empires...during the Middle Ages. While this belief has no scientific basis, contemporary adherents still try to propagate these beliefs as science.” [Source: Wikipedia]

 An editorial in the Times of India decried the government advisory: “When all the authorities including World Health Organization claim there is neither any vaccine nor any treatment for coronavirus, the government is promoting unproven therapies to lull people into a false sense of security that they can be safe if they consume such concoctions.” Dr. Misba Hul Bashier added on Twitter that “loads of patients developed acute liver and kidney failure due to alternative medicines.”

Of course, recommendation of useless or even dangerous steps driven by fear of the virus is not limited to the Indian government. A Canadian news story cites “quack remedies and vaccine conspiracies – a global deluge of misinformation” including a recommendation on Facebook to drink a household disinfectant and another source claiming that a saline solution, salty water, can cure it.

What can we do when misinformation abounds – petition the government for new regulations like the Europeans? Critical thinking would be a lot easier and less intrusive by trusting real evidence rather than endorsements and recommendations.

Flashback – Electro-pseudoscience

[In recent news from England “a poster for the charity Electrosensitivity-UK asked, “How safe is 5G?” They oppose the roll out of 5G technology and warned, without any scientific evidence, that it causes a “range of health effects such as ‘reduced male fertility, depression, disturbed sleep and headaches, as well as cancer’”.

This fear mongering is reminiscent of my posting in December 2014 titled “Fear of Power Lines.” This kind of panic based on bad science will keep coming up as long as a gullible public will buy into it.]

If you are old enough, you remember the big scare in the late 1980s about power lines causing cancer. In fact, if you are not old enough to remember the news reports at the time, you have probably heard about this idea from someone who was. There was a great deal of concern, but after over 30 years of further research, it appears to have been a mistaken assumption.  Still the fear persists.

This fairly short (7:46) NY Times Retro Report is worth watching.

It begins with replays of news reports from all the major networks from 1987.  It was big news at the time, and this reminder is very informative showing in retrospect how the news business operates when breaking news has the potential to stir up a lot of fear based on a very limited study.  A voice-over talks about how power lines may cause cancer while showing the picture of a small bald child, apparently battling cancer (but not from power lines) – sneaky.  When seven children in one Denver school developed cancer and parents blamed it on nearby power lines, one reporter said that it could be a “tragedy of enormous proportions.”

The Times calls the episode “Power of Fear” with the message that once this type of fear is introduced into our society it never really goes away.  

The researcher who first suspected the problem now explains that further research has ruled out any problem. With the number and density of power lines, this should have developed into a major health problem, but it didn’t. “That suspicion [of a cancer risk] was simply wrong...The likely impact [of power lines] is zero.”  

Scientists in the 1990s conducted hundreds of experiments exposing rats, other animals and human cells to intense EMFs (magnetic fields around the power lines) over long periods of time with no change in the cells.  “In 20 years of looking, no one has found a way that power line fields can do anything at all to cells of animals; unless it can do something to cells, it cannot cause cancer.” The National Academy of Sciences confirmed this by reviewing 500 studies and releasing their findings in October 1996. Nothing since then has altered the conclusion of no danger.

The association was always “suggestive, but very faint” but correlation does not prove causation. Yet the idea, the fear, persists and is still spread by some public figures, some advertisers who use the scare tactics to sell real estate service and by word of mouth – now enhanced by the reach and power of social media.

Why do some Americans believe these sources and continue to fear the presence of power lines? Psychologists tell us that risks that are invisible, that might cause suffering before death or that might affect children have uncanny staying power, even in the face of firm evidence to the contrary. This highlights the need for critical thinking, to put aside emotional responses and listen to the facts. Don’t we have enough stuff to be afraid of without dredging up errors from the past?

Boston to London

“Abigail Adams was terrified of the sea.” That information comes from the beginning of Chapter Six of John Adams by David McCullough. He goes on to describe her trip to Europe in 1784 to join her husband John, who had been negotiating support from France, peace with England and financial help from The Netherlands.

Having been separated from him for four and a half years, she gathered her courage to join him in Europe. Prior to that she had never been away from her home in Massachusetts or the home of a close relative for more than a night or two.

It says of the passengers, no sooner was the ship out of port “than they were all horribly seasick.” In her words, the passengers “crawled upon [the] deck whenever we were able, but it was so cold and damp that we could not remain long.” 

“The ship was filthy and carrying a cargo of whale oil and potash.” The rolling of the ship caused leaks in the cargo containers resulting in a very unpleasant odor from below. The only way to get air into their cabins was to leave the doors to the main cabin, where the men slept, partially open, with only curtains to afford the women a small sense of privacy.

When they dropped anchor in the English Channel, after 30 days at sea, the only way to get ashore was in an open pilot boat exposed to “squally rain and the roar of the heaving waves, with everyone soaked to the skin.”  She had to be supported by some of the crewmen to avoid being swept overboard.

The next day they traveled seventy-two miles to London in one day, twice what was at that time considered a hard day’s journey, exposed to robbers and highwaymen along the way, dangers that were in those days a rarity along roads in the United States.

Her return trip was described later in the book as a 58-day “rough crossing.”

Consider that today it takes six and a half hours to travel from Boston to London. When they arrive passengers will complain about long security lines at the airport, the size of the seats, the food service and a fear of flying that can only be conquered with the help of a comfort animal. Perspective anyone?