Flashback – Household Germs

[This piece from November 2014 has popped up as a favorite in the past. Perhaps it’s a good  reminder not to get out of the hand-washing habit.]

ABC asks the “shocking” question: What’s the most germ-infested place in your house? The answer, it turns out, is “the towels in your kitchen and bathroom.”

They go on to cite a Kimberly Clark-funded study whose author says, “towels are more likely to be bacteria-ridden than other household items because they are used to wipe hands and surfaces that may have been contaminated by raw meat products.” They are usually damp, a state that further encourages bacterial growth.  

If that's not disgusting enough, it is common knowledge that most home kitchens would not pass the kind of standard health inspection that cafeterias and restaurants are routinely subject to. We certainly don’t wear our hairnets when preparing dinner. How many people keep a thermometer in their refrigerator, clean all surfaces, assign different cutting boards to meat and vegetables or are diligent about chilling foods promptly at the end of each meal? These are standard food safety requirements. But the idea of handling raw meat and then wiping your hands on a kitchen towel before continuing with meal preparation is the kind of practice that would get your favorite eating establishment shut down.

This is not what really caught my attention in the article, though. What I noticed was the use of flu season and the Ebola scare in their introduction to set up the story. Flu and Ebola are viral diseases; they have nothing to do with the bacteria discussion that was the focus of the rest of the story. Like the writer, most people don’t seem to pay much attention to the difference between bacteria and viruses. Germs are germs. If I have a head cold, I call the doctor and ask for antibiotics – the fact that antibiotics act against bacteria and not viruses is not my concern. So we end up with germs that build a resistance to antibiotics, people don’t make the connection and then rely on “science” to fix the problem.

This is all unnecessary when we have easy access to a complete explanation of the differences between bacteria, viruses, fungi and protozoa written for kids! It points out that some bacteria are good, live in your body and help you digest food. It doesn’t mention that some fungi are good – like morel mushrooms. It closes with advice about hand washing with soap and water – nothing fancy needed, using tissues for coughs, sneezes and sniffles, and getting proper immunizations. Yes, it tells kids that immunizations are important and the smart choice. It closes with “eating well, exercising regularly, and getting good sleep” can keep you healthy.

This is great information and advice that many adults should heed. When a reporter for ABC news can so casually mix things up, then report on adults wiping, not washing their hands during food preparation, perhaps we need to take a step back and learn from the science that we expect our kids to understand.

[These issues call for critical thinking, but up in the first paragraph of the original piece, notice the use of the word “shocking.” Other news media favorites include "stunning," “staggering” and “catastrophic.” They can’t just address a question or pass along a fact. It has to be emotionally charged, controversial or both. In the process of presenting news that should call for critical thinking, they intentionally distract with emotional wording.]

Memorial Day

On the last Monday in May we celebrate Memorial Day. It’s traditionally considered the beginning of summer, a long weekend marked by cookouts, parades and political speeches – although probably less so this year.

Like most holidays, the meaning behind the celebration has been watered down considerably. The Old Farmers Almanac puts it well: “We spend time remembering those who lost their lives and could not come home, reflecting on their service and why we have the luxury and freedom that we enjoy today.” Most if not all those political speeches will also call on spectators to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms.

Yes, there will be much mention of freedom, but I have written many times in the past about the inexorable link between freedom and responsibility, most recently in a Flashback entry about two months ago.

Freedom is something that can be so easily frittered away. When children act irresponsibly, good parents impose restrictions, time outs or groundings. Others, though, may dismiss it as a phase they are going through. As their behavior leads to bigger problems, parents find themselves in a position of constantly having to bail their children out of trouble, because they have never learned responsibility. 

When they become adults, the government or advocates take over, often in the form of new regulations and restrictions. The problem is that, in order to keep the irresponsible from hurting themselves or others, those new regulations apply to everyone. To keep some citizens from making bad decisions, our elected leaders take away our ability to decide for ourselves. 

Because of a few irresponsible people, police have the legal right to set up sobriety checkpoints on highways waylaying everyone, without permission or a warrant.

Because of a few irresponsible people, encouraged by members of the legal profession who profit from it, try to shift the blame for their poor choices, every purchase requires warnings that add to the cost. We sign hold-harmless agreements and must carry extra insurance to guard against such reprisals.

How many states and counties have arbitrary laws about sales of liquor, fireworks, sugary soft drinks, and trans fats? If one busybody neighbor gets concerned, you can be arrested for letting your children walk a couple of blocks to the park alone.

This has become only more pronounced during the pandemic. Many governors impose arbitrary restrictions, in some cases enforced by threats of police involvement or other penalties. Even those who choose to make prudent decisions on their own are caught up in the hysteria. Some citizens feel obligated to shout at, threaten or report neighbors.

In one case, a salon owner in Texas “was ordered to spend a week in jail after she continued to operate her business despite restrictions put in place.” She was not free to operate her business, despite having brave employees and customers willing to participate.

Michigan residents were forbidden from buying seeds and garden supplies. It’s springtime! At least one mayor threatened to shut off utilities to maverick businesses. Meanwhile those who have been terrorized by the news media’s black-and-white portrayal of the situation, support the virtual house arrest, cower behind closed doors, fearful of dying themselves and accusing those who want to go back to work of being selfish and callous about the lives of others.

How long will some of the coronavirus restrictions stay in place? Will governors and mayors assume a new sense of marshal law-like powers to be called upon in any future situations that can be defined as emergencies? Will the how-many-deaths-is-it-worth crowd dominate, as we  permanently lose more freedom while politicians continue to vow to “fight for your rights” by passing more regulations?

The last line of the first verse of our National Anthem asked the question, “… does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” Francis Scott Key was asking whether the flag was still there. It is, but a better question would be: how much longer  can it honestly be considered "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? The founders chose liberty over safety, and that is presumably what all those people fought and died for. Today we seem to passively accept the opposite.

Flashback - Getting What We Pay For

[Back at the end of 2012, I wrote a piece I called “Green Schools - A Questionable Investment.” It was just one example of how key words can get people charging off on a mission without first figuring out if it makes economic sense. It happens in government and in personal lives. We hear words like “green” or “natural” or “sustainable” and many more, and we automatically read it as positive. Emotional decision making takes over and the damage results, sometimes minor expenses, sometimes a major waste. Here is the story.]

This rather long USA Today article is worth reading. It tells of a review of green schools, those that were built to meet standards set by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), an organization that promotes and certifies green construction not only for schools but for other commercial and government buildings. Green construction is promoted by school boards and by governments at  all levels. “[T]housands of commercial developers have won state and local tax breaks, grants, expedited permitting and waivers from development laws for LEED-certified buildings. More than 200 states, federal agencies and municipalities require LEED certification for public buildings.”

School districts that paid higher construction costs for LEED-certified buildings in return for promised energy savings and better student performance found that they fell short in both categories.  They were told up front that the improved environment would lead to both future utility savings and better learning and teacher success, but “a USA TODAY review of school-test records, LEED-certification documents and research reports shows little correlation between 'green schools' and student performance or energy use.”  Often they made the investment but did not get near the expected return.

This is another strong case for critical thinking, asking for evidence over promises; that behavior is lacking in America today. We have developed a kind of fairytale mentality that everything will be grand because our intentions are noble and our hearts are in the right place. People are lured by feel-good words that entice them into making instant value judgments without evidence, words like green, sustainable, all-natural, justice and fairness, holistic, anti-oxidants, probiotics, diversity, and others.  They hear the word and automatically expect better outcomes. It causes them to show an irrational preference for such things as natural/organic foods, dietary supplements, bottled water, complimentary medicine, and now, construction techniques that promise much, but  fail to deliver.  Even when faced with strong evidence of this failure, hype wins out over reality.

Many years ago a scheme to sell more of a product (or service) was to label it in bold letters as “New and Improved.”  Eventually consumers realized that changes were often minor as was any improvement in performance. Now the approach is the same but the words have changed. A critical thinking America must begin to demand more than just promises. Otherwise we will continue to be duped, wasting time, energy and money for little or nothing in return.

[By seeing enough examples like this I have personally become sensitive to these words. They set off alarms in my brain telling me to be careful and check the details before committing. But all these years later the packaging and advertising stays the same.] 

Is The News Making Us Sick?

It began one morning with two seemingly unrelated items: a story about mountain climbing on BBC Future and a panel from the comics section of the newspaper.

The BBC article, “The placebo effect is well known for its medical benefits, but there is evidence it could give athletes an edge, too,” began with an experiment where mountain climbers were given oxygen to boost physical performance at high altitudes. In a laboratory simulation, they were first given tanks of oxygen to improve performance. When they were later given empty tanks, their brains expected similar improvement and caused the body to adjust appropriately.

It went on to explain how placebos like this can improve athletic performance in other areas, for example, sugar pills believed to be performance enhancing drugs could have the same effect. 

The effectiveness of placebos applies to many areas. A summary of studies shows that “antidepressants are effective for depression about 31-70% of the time, while placebos are effective 12-50% of the time…. So, while antidepressants appear more effective than placebo, only a fraction of the benefit we see in patients is likely from a direct neurobiological impact of the medication itself.” Effectiveness depends on the amount of faith patients have in the product. Placebos taken as part of a test of more powerful drugs tend to have more powerful effects; and patients often report some of the same side effect as the drug itself.

This led me to another BBC article explaining the opposite effect, sometimes called nocebo. In this example the treatment was merely the words the doctor used. The doctor, talking about serious osteoarthritis, says that he has “bad news,” that the knees are “worn out” and the medicine may “help a bit,” but may damage the stomach lining. The doctor has set the patient up to expect the worst. This kind of presentation can unintentionally cause the brain to deliver the opposite of a placebo effect: less positive, possibly negative, outcomes.

A conclusion is “when prescribing treatments, the doctor should emphasise the positive effects of the medicine, while framing the negative side-effects so they seem less frightening, and being careful not to over-emphasise their risks.” They should be honest, but with an optimistic tone.

This led to yet another BBC article, this one from 2015, about how negative thoughts and ideas can not only make you sick, but actually kill you. This effect applies to any authority figure or respected expert, not just doctors. “In the same way that voodoo shamans could harm their victims through the power of suggestion, priming someone to think they are ill can often produce the actual symptoms of a disease.” Hence, people can die of fright or become sicker based on the message and their faith in the authority of the messenger.

Each of these articles is interesting, but coincidentally they came to my attention on the day I saw “The Flying McCoys” at the bottom of the page of an on-line newspaper. The idea is almost too true and too common to be funny and typical of many news programs.

Based on the information above, what is this doing to the overall health of the American people, this constant barrage of fears and anxiety over the virus and whether opening the economy too soon will be a mistake, the emphasis on the ever increasing number of cases and deaths, the constant skepticism about the actions and predictions of the task force, the criticism of any encouraging remarks – especially if they turn out to be overly optimistic; and for years now, fanning the flames of  divisiveness within the country – all with the express intention of putting us on edge, amplifying the fear and anxiety to get everyone to continue to tune in. 

Remember, placebo, the strong mind-body connection cuts both ways. Between the news media, social media and politicians, it’s surprising we are not all physical and emotional wrecks.

The news can be both addictive and unhealthy. One defense is to watch less. Another is to use critical thinking and see it for what it is, big business trying to attract “eyeballs,” and act accordingly, increase our skepticism, lessen our faith in the source and discount their predictions of a fearful outcome at every turn. 

Flashback – Responsibility and Excuses

[How things have changed from when I originally titled this “Evidence Abounds” back in 2011. These days news is dominated by coronavirus and politics (or the mixture). What hasn’t changed is the tendency to use excuses in place of responsibility and the media’s willingness to encourage this behavior. First see the flashback comments.]

How hard is it to find evidence of problematic behavior in one or more of the five dimensions or of institutionalized support for these habits? – Surprisingly easy.  There are days when I have to pick and choose among available topics.

Today I have an Associated Press article left over from 3 weeks ago presenting research that tells how hormones make it more difficult to keep weight off after dieting.  The headline begins, “Not your fault!”  This is right out of the poor discipline/poor responsibility playbook.  It gives people the excuse that they can’t stick to their diet because of their hormones.  Ironically the header above the article features six advertising links, five of which are for weight-loss products, programs or surgery – the easy answers that everyone looks for when faced with the hard work of getting back to and staying at the right weight.  This is practically the definition of discipline and responsibility failures that bubble up into many other societal issues and crises (budgeting, smoking, and alcohol abuse, to name a few).

How, in the first place, can any reputable scientist say that hormones are the problem?  Didn’t humans have the same hormones many years ago when the number of overweight Americans was less than half of what it is today?  It just doesn’t add up.

Second, how can the parent of a teenager use hormones as an excuse for regaining weight and not let that teenager use hormones as an excuse for any of their own destructive decisions?  This sounds like a can of worms ready to be opened.

I have sometimes jokingly said that if I ever got arrested for anything, I’d just tell the police that what I was doing was performance art and protected under the First Amendment.  Now, I guess, if that doesn’t fly, I have the excuse of hormones to fall back on.  

[Well, that was then, but in 2020, a NOVA episode was dedicated to blaming obesity mostly on genes using examples of rare cases. It's a little hard to believe that our genes are so much different from Americans living in the 1950s and 60s. Does evolution work that fast, or is it just another handy excuse?]

Another Health Scam

With the coronavirus leading every news broadcast, the networks have begun also to highlight the prevalence of false claims, fake cures and scams. To make the point that this is not new, CBS Sunday Morning (4/26) addressed the history of fake medicines and cure-alls, but was disappointingly vague on some of the current scams, ones people fall for every day, probably from fear of offending both promoters and viewers. They did, however, include a few comments from Dr. Stephen Barrett who pulls no punches in his criticism of modern scams.

In one of his latest investigations into junk medical science, Dr. Barrett addressed a process known as bioresonance hair testing. Practitioners use a device "based on the pseudoscience of radionics to analyze hair samples mailed in by customers" to "detect nutritional deficiencies; overexposure to heavy metals; and food and environmental intolerances” to serve as a “roadmap to better health.” He calls the practice preposterous, in that “hair analysis is not reliable for evaluating the nutritional status of individuals” as well as giving several other reasons why it doesn’t work.

An earlier article on the same subject he warned its use by “chiropractors, nutrition consultants, physicians who do chelation therapy, and other misguided practitioners who claim that hair analyses can help them diagnose a wide variety of health problems and can be used as the basis for prescribing supplements.” 

Since bioresonance is based on radionics, it gets even more “preposterous.” These theories supposedly rely on quantum entanglement, a central principle of quantum physics where information can be transmitted instantaneously at a distance apparently violating the speed of light. Quantum physics is arcane and incomprehensible to non-scientists, yet many questionable products use it to explain action at a distance to add a scientific-sounding aura to their sales pitch. But it's all bogus.

Then it gets more unrealistic. According to this site, “Radionics can be used for humans, animals and agriculture by means of radionic instruments which amplify and 'balance' the subtle energy field of the subject” by using “a photograph, hair snippet or other biological sample.” It works best with a good quality digital photograph because “the image stores the information of the subject and a digital file cannot be contaminated like a biological sample can,” and the light “creates a crystallization of the energy matrix of the subject.” 

Another site says, it’s “a method of healing and diagnosing at a distance using the unique extra-sensory faculties of the operator supported and amplified by a physical instrument, device, geometric pattern, energy or substance.” Since “every person's energy patterns, frequencies, signatures, vibrations or rhythms are as unique to them as their fingerprints,” they can easily detect and help correct any type of “illness, injury, infection, stress, pollution, malnutrition, or poor hygiene.”

In summary, “patients” send a full digital picture or some strands of hair. "Doctors,” using their powers of ESP, run it through their energy detection machine, make a diagnosis based on an individual energy matrix, vibrations and rhythms and recommend supplements to cure what ails them, all using the magic of quantum physics. Remember, the same technique applies to their pets or their houseplants – with a separate charge for each.

But that’s not all! In some cases, their house may be causing the problem due to the presence of “geopathic stress,” which messes with the occupants’ health. That, too, can be cured at a distance by sending a photograph and using the above technique.

This seems so outlandish that I can’t help wondering who would be taken in by it. Then I see the statement that radionics can be a “supplement to other complementary and Subtle Energy therapies especially Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Reiki,” and it all becomes clear.

CBS might mock citizens of the nineteenth century for buying Stanley’s snake oil concoctions or for making a millionaire of Albert Abrams (1864-1924), developer of devices that were the precursors of today’s radionics, but they needn’t look far to find twenty-first-century parallels.

Arthur C. Clark wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” but come on, people! These scams are packaged as advanced technology and sold to people who want to believe in magic.

Flashback - Food Label Funny Business – Part 2

[Last Friday’s flashback related to serving size, like the “single serve pizza” or the chicken pot pie that each contains two servings. Trust me, it’s easier to cut a small pizza in half than the soupy-centered pie.

This week I flash back to early last year in another example of how important it is to pay attention and to “Read the Label.”  It’s not about serving size this time but about a surprising comparison, finding out an energy drink is about as unhealthy as a gooey donut. Here are the details I shared in January 2019.]

Every gardening class on the use of pesticides repeats the mantra, “Read the Label.” Even a bottle of Lysol brand cleaner has the statement, “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” This is true of many other household cleaners, even though most people do not think of them as pesticides (killing bacteria) or otherwise hazardous.

But this little bit of wisdom applies not only to household cleaning and garden chores, but also to what we eat. I found a rather surprising example recently.

Since about 60 years ago Americans began worrying about the amount and types of fat contained in their foods. Eating fat was believed to clog the arteries, and many assumed that the fat in food turned into fat in the body. Government guidelines picked up the message, and most of the funding from about 1970 on went to scientists trying to prove the dangers of fat. 

More recent research shows that we should be more concerned with sugar than with fat. Experts now blame the obesity epidemic on sugar, as cities try to tax or ban sugary soft drinks and experts try to discourage sugar consumption in general. (Sugar moderation is especially important to avoid developing adult-onset diabetes.)

Here is the example that surprised me. Below are pictured two products: a 32-ounce bottle of Gatorade and a container of Boston Cream Donuts from the bakery at my local grocery store. Which would the average person guess contains more sugar? 

 

The Gatorade, as does its rival PowerAde, contains 21 grams of sugar per serving with a little more than 2.5 servings per bottle. That’s 56 grams of sugar as pictured here.

The package of donuts contains 10 grams per serving with 4 servings total. That’s about 28% less sugar in the four donuts pictured compared to a single bottle of sports drink, and the donuts contain less than half the sugar per serving!

How many other surprises are lining the grocery store aisles? We never know unless we read the label.

Failure of many people to do so is how the foodies and other self-proclaimed health experts get away with their absolute rules – never eat prepackaged foods, never eat anything you can’t pronounce, avoid GMOs and gluten. These stances are easy to remember but extreme and often nonsensical. If we just take a minute or two to read the label, we can make good choices without going overboard.

The Opposite of True

Some ideas are repeated so often that large numbers of Americans believe them without question. This makes a handy tool for politicians, advertisers and fundraisers. They get our support to fix problems that either don’t exist or have been exaggerated out of proportion. I covered some of these, stories about child abductions and clean air problems, about two years ago. Here are a few more examples.

Police killed in the line of duty:

Watch the news and you would believe that this issue is at an all-time high. There is a war on; blue lives matter! But the data tell a different story.

This website lists all deaths in the line of duty by cause and by year. The overall figures match fairly well with this other site, so I believe the information is accurate. 

Ignoring causes like accidents, heart attacks, etc., I looked only at gunfire, assault and vehicular assault, that is, purposeful acts. The total for 2019 was 58, somewhat below average. Of the last ten years, the highest were 2010, 2011 and 2016. The lowest were 2013, 2015 and 2017. There seems to be no pattern or trend.

Naturally, no one should feel good about any number above zero. Every case is a tragedy. The problem is a lack of progress, not an escalation.

Vietnam Veterans:

After so many years the stereotype of the mentally scarred Vietnam veteran still rings true in the public imagination. Reality is surprisingly different.

Research done early this century and summarized by Peter Rowe in the San Diego Union-Tribune found that those who served in Vietnam were “more likely to be married, college educated and gainfully employed than other members of their generation.”

Furthermore, a Harris poll of returned veterans “revealed that 90 percent said that, ‘looking back,’ they were either ‘very glad’ or ‘somewhat glad’ to have ‘served their country.’ Eighty percent said that returning home was ‘about the same or better’ than they had ‘anticipated.’” A large majority rejected the popular notion of the former soldier struggling to readjust, haunted by flashbacks and nightmares. 

Scam Victims:

We hear it over and over on the news and public service announcements: Make sure grandma and grandpa don’t become victims of scams. As a senior citizen who doesn’t answer the phone unless I recognize the number and who dumps in the spam bucket those weekly messages that my email is about to expire unless I follow the link, I resent the implication! The truth is that younger people are more susceptible to scams. 

This is true in the US, but I have seen similar reports from the UK and Australia. Here is an Experian article about a Better Business Bureau report. “Americans ages 18 to 34 were more susceptible to scams (43.7% were victims) than Americans 55 and older (27.6% were victims). However, while occurrences are less for older Americans, seniors still lose more money in scams than younger victims.” (They probably lose more only because they have more.) 

The Inc. website reports the same tendencies.

Going back to the Experian numbers, there is something fishy about their numbers. In the article they show a graph of those scammed by age group, which they took from the original report.

To get 43.7% they merely added 25 + 18.7. That’s like saying if 10% of first graders have red hair and 10% of second graders have red hair, then 20% of the whole group have red hair. WRONG! The right answer is 10% provided the classes are of equal size.

So their report of 43.7% for the younger people is really closer to 22%, and their number 27.6% for the seniors is less than 14%. The conclusion is still the same but the math is pathetic! (Remember, Experian is one of the three companies that calculate your credit score and they have trouble with this simple calculation!)

The overall point here is that we are often fed stories that are no more than stories that someone wants us to believe to raise donations, increase their ratings or get support for passing a new (unnecessary) law. 

Flashback – Food Label Funny Business

[Over the years I have warned about the importance of reading labels on food packages. Today I will flash back to one of these and next Friday to another. The first emphasizes the importance of paying attention to serving size before taking the package information at face value.

Here, from December 2015 is “Brownie Mix Tricks.”]

This is not about some fancy recipes to make or decorate brownies. It’s  how the information on the box can easily be misleading or deceptive.

On the front of this box of brownie mix the label says, “110 calories.” This looks very reasonable for a dessert.  It is less than two graham crackers, little more than a single chocolate chip cookie.  But let’s look at the fine print.

Trick number one: the serving size is 1/20 of a package. That seems like a very small brownie. When I made them, I cut the finished brownies in an 8x8 pan first in half, then cut each of those slices in half. Then I turned it and cut again in the same way. I had 16 small, square brownies about 2 inches on a side.  Now 1/16 is not 1/20; it’s actually 25 percent larger. So 110 calories becomes almost 140 calories.  But wait!

Trick number two: the front of the package refers us to the nutrition facts label on the side of the package. There it says again 110 calories (with 20 servings per package), but that is for the contents of the package only, the powdery stuff. When you stir in the water, oil and eggs a serving size has 160 calories, which becomes 200 calories for the size brownie I cut, and the calories from fat have increased from 9% to 38%.

So we have a package that honestly and legally reads 110 calories, but the brownie I put in my mouth has 200 calories, nearly double that amount. This seems a little bit tricky, at best. We are expecting one amount and getting nearly twice as much.

The government’s solution to this problem is to make the nutritional labels larger. The behavioral model’s solution to this problem is to promote critical thinking. The government’s solution is the same problem with a bigger font size, but we still have to figure it out for ourselves. At least the behavioral model gives us a chance to be better consumers, as this somewhat trivial case shows. And it also gives us a chance to be more successful in many of life’s more complex challenges (where the government can't solve it for us - we still have to figure it out for ourselves).

P.S.  The brownies were delicious!