Adjusting to Reality; Exposing Lies. I wasn't able to comment here yesterday because I've started a part-time job in Manhattan and haven't found the fastest way in and home again so have to give myself lots of time. I have had to accept limits on what I can accomplish while working for cash. I have two other Internet sites that I pretty much have to update every day, but I never made that pledge here. I have no idea how many people read this regularly, and since I make no money from it, I must give precedence to income activities. (My daily sites are "Simpler Spelling Word of the Day" and my Newark fotoblog, which is a semi-firm commitment to a Foto a Day. I'm not making any money from either of those either, but might in time make some money from fotografy in this niche market.)
+
I'll comment here when I have time and am moved — usually, irritated — to comment. Two topics today.
+
"Warmest April Ever". The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, a Federal agency, dared to announce May 15th that this April was the "warmest on record". Not content with exaggerating "global warming", scientists are now outrite lying.
+
As I write, it is 55 degrees in the middle of the day on May 19th. Assuming it was a tad cooler earlier in the day, the law in New York City, less than 20 miles from me, requires that the heat be on (whenever, from October thru May, the outside temperature falls below 55 degrees)! Imagine that: we have to spend money on heating our homes in the latter part of May! And April was cold, not just here in the Northeast.
+
I spoke with my younger sister in Long Beach, California, during April, and she was bothered by how cold it was there, a continent away. So where was it warm? Not in the Northeast. Not in the Pacific Southwest. Where?

The anomalous warmth was particularly concentrated over the south-central United States. Texas and Oklahoma had their warmest April on record, while New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee recorded their second warmest. Twelve other states recorded one of their top five warmest Aprils on record. None of the 48 contiguous states was cooler-than average. However, temperatures across Alaska were cooler than average during April, with a statewide temperature of 0.85 F (0.47 C) below the 1971-2000 mean. The record warm temperature led to below normal residential energy demand for the U.S., as measured by the nation's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index. Using this index, NOAA scientists determined that the nation's residential energy demand was approximately 12 percent less than what would have occurred under average climate conditions for the month.

As the saying goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The sense is that tho a numerical average may be correct, it can be read incorrectly as meaning something it doesn't, as here. If you have 30 days (as has April), and it is cooler by 2 degrees on 15 of them, cooler by 5 degrees during 9 of them, but warmer by 15 degrees on 6 of them, you end up with an "average" temperature that is warmer than normal, because a few unusually warm days statistically more than make up for the 4/5 of the month that was colder than normal. And if semi-arid areas in the heart of the continent, experiencing continental temperatures, are unusually warm, that tilts the 'national average'. But that average means nothing to those of us who are sitting in the cold, running our heat at nite to keep our teeth from chattering.
+
How about that "residential energy demand" figure? Excessive heat produces energy demand too, for air-conditioning. So temperatures that are cooler than usual in areas that would ordinarily use air-conditioners would also produce a drop in "residential energy demand", wouldn't they? (Unfortunately, some people are so enamored of air-conditioning that they put it on when it's not needed. Air-conditioning has become a curse in this country. The other nite a chilled passenger actually had the courage to shout to the bus driver to please "cut the a/c", which he did. Most people just suffer in silence, or open a window to let some warm air in. Last nite I had, again, to complain to a staffer at my favorite bar that it was frigid, and he turned off the cooling part of the air-conditioner, leaving only the fan, which was quite enuf to begin with.)
+
Note that, in the NOAA passage I quote above, Alaska's temperatures were subnormal. How is that possible? Aren't the polar regions supposed to be experiencing catastrophic "global warming" that will drown coastal cities around the planet? Maybe not.
+
And as for the fear we are supposed to have that "global warming" will produce a worldwide desert, tell that to the waterlogged people of New England, who recently suffered thru day after day of torrential rains.
+
"Pre-Hypertensive". I heard the tail end of a health report today on preventing stroke, that dared to call blood pressure "as low as 120 over 80 'pre-hypertensive'". Unbearable. 120 over 80 is perfect blood pressure, and has been perfect blood pressure for generations. Now it is "pre-hypertensive"! The medical-industrial complex is constantly moving the goalposts to make us think we have to spend more and more money on doctors and medicines.
+
At the beginning of this year, my doctor told me my cholesterol was slitely elevated, and I should take Vytorin for a couple of months, then check back. The number for total cholesterol on the printed report he gave me was 242. The brochure he handed me to explain cholesterol said that normal is up to 240. But he said no, the most recent findings recommend a much lower level. WebMD shows these newer standards:

Cholesterol is considered abnormal when:

Total cholesterol is 200 mg/dL or higher.
HDL or "good" cholesterol level is less than 40 mg/dL [Mine was 46.]
LDL or "bad" cholesterol is 160 mg/dL or higher -- with 190 and above being very high. [Mine was 156.] However, the lower the LDL, the better. An LDL less than 100 is considered optimal; 100 to 129 is near optimal; 130 to 159 is borderline high.

So between the time the brochure was printed, presumably no more than a couple of years ago at most, and now, the medical establishment has lowered the figure by 40 points, 17%. That's nuts. And my "bad" cholesterol figure was under the "abnormal" figure! So why should I take Vytorin?
+
Not yet having read anything about this when I left the doctor's office, I took the prescription to my local pharmacy and got an initial supply of Vytorin. Then I read the brochure the doctor gave me and the printed cautions that came with Vytorin:

Headache may occur. If this effect persists or worsens, notify your doctor or pharmacist promptly. This drug can sometimes cause muscle damage. Although uncommon, this may lead to very serious muscle damage called rhabdomyolysis, which in rare cases can be fatal. Seek immediate medical attention if you develop: muscle pain/tenderness/weakness (especially with fever or unusual tiredness). Tell your doctor immediately if any of these highly unlikely but very serious side effects occur: yellowing eyes and skin, dark urine, severe fatigue, stomach/abdominal pain, persistent nausea, change in the amount of urine. A serious allergic reaction to this drug is unlikely, but seek immediate medical attention if it occurs. Symptoms of a serious allergic reaction include: rash, itching, swelling, dizziness, trouble breathing. If you notice other effects not listed above, contact your doctor or pharmacist.

No way in hell am I taking anything that has serious possible side-effects to 'combat' a cholesterol number only 2 points (0.83%) above the normal range of only a couple of years ago! There hasn't been a heart attack in my family, either side, for the four generations we know about. It would be insane for me, at age 61, to take a potentially dangerous drug to lower cholesterol to an artificially low number when I have essentially no risk of a heart attack.
+
That this country is over-medicated is widely understood. How many health problems are intrinsic, as against how many pharmaceutically induced? It seems to me that the fewer drugs you take, the healthier you are likely to stay, whereas the more drugs you take, the more danger you face from each drug's own side-effects, and the multiple and sometimes unpredictable effects of drug interactions. For my part, if I take two aspirins once a month, that's a lot.
+
People have to bring an active, healthy skepticism to all things "scientific". If it doesn't sound right, maybe it's not right.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 2,454.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 2:33 PM