I.
Journal of American Medicine says that global warming, not, say, Democrat rule in cities, or defunded police forces, is responsible for “surge in gun violence”
Here are a couple of excerpts from the piece to give you a flavor of what passes for medical science these days:
Accounting for seasonality and regional climate differences, they found that 7,973 shootings were attributable to above-average temperatures. The temperatures associated with increased gun violence varied considerably across cities. For example, both Seattle and Las Vegas experienced the highest elevated risk of gun violence during days when the temperature soared within the 96th percentile range of average daily temperatures—but for Seattle, that temperature was 84 degrees, while in Las Vegas, it was 104 degrees.
And of course, you can’t have pseudo medical news without systemic racism:
“The Northeast and Midwest regions are where we see some of the starkest differences in the built environment and other resources, according to race—to me, these inequities are the most interesting and important direction of this work,” Dr. Jay says. “We know that segregation and disinvestment lead communities of color, especially Black communities, to have greater exposure to adverse environmental conditions that contribute to gun violence risk, such as abandoned buildings, liquor stores, lack of green space, and more intense urban heat islands.”
And the ultimate hat trick: racism, global warming, guns:
Healthy tree canopy and other heat mitigation strategies can serve as part of a mission that’s “part racial justice, part climate change mitigation, and part gun violence prevention,” he says. “These are all urgent issues where we need to continue to partner with communities and work across disciplines.”
II.
The ““medical authorities” aren’t done using health scares to push the global warming agenda, because it’s all one:
Consumer Safety Board weighs banning nature gas stoves
The U.S. agency in charge of making sure the country’s consumer products are safe will weigh regulations on new gas stoves, one of the board’s commissioners said on Wednesday.
Richard Trumka Jr., a commissioner on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), said during a virtual webinar on Wednesday that the commission will put out a formal request by March for information on hazards associated with gas stoves and possible solutions.
“This public request for information is the first step in what could be a long journey toward regulating gas stoves,” he said.
But he added that the process could be sped up with enough public pressure.
“We could get a regulation on the books before this time next year,” he said.
Trumka, who is the son of the late labor organizer of the same name, called an outright ban on new gas stoves “a real possibility.”
…. Recent studies have found that gas stoves can emit substances that are harmful to human health.
Richard Meyer, vice president of energy markets, analysis and standards at the American Gas Association, told The Hill in a written statement that the organization is “eager” to submit information “related to the safety of gas cooking appliances and ways to reduce cooking process emissions.”
The request for information is also highlighted in minutes from a CPSC meeting from late October, but did not appear to garner significant public attention at that time.
The minutes say commission staff will prepare a document seeking public input on “hazards associated with gas stoves” and “proposed solutions.”
The commission’s chair and two other commissioners are Biden nominees, while one commissioner is a Trump nominee.
Public Interest Research Group environment campaigns director Matt Casale said that such a standard could have significant public health benefits.
“It could mean better indoor air quality, which could mean fewer instances of childhood asthma, fewer flare ups of childhood asthma, fewer missed school days, fewer missed work days,” Casale told The Hill.
He added that regulations may also have secondary benefits in terms of climate change, but that the main focus would be air quality.
“Air quality”. Uh-huh. I warned this was coming back in January when reports like this began cropping up:
Over the past three years, dozens of cities across the country have banned natural gas hookups in newly constructed buildings as part of a growing campaign to reduce carbon emissions from homes. The movement scored a major victory last month, when New York City’s outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law a ban on gas hookups in new buildings.
Though new laws apply to the entire home, the policy debate often focuses on one room in particular: the kitchen. Gas stoves account for a relatively small share of the emissions released by a typical household, but they’ve become a proxy for a larger fight over how far efforts to curb at-home natural gas consumption in the name of fighting climate change should go.
III.
And where would we be without Harvard’s medical/political experts? Conservatives are killing us.
Can politics kill you? Research says the answer increasingly is yes.
Washington Post
December 16, 2022
As the coronavirus pandemic approaches its third full winter, two studies reveal an uncomfortable truth: The toxicity of partisan politics is fueling an overall increase in mortality rates for working-age Americans.
In one study, researchers concluded that people living in more-conservative parts of the United States disproportionately bore the burden of illness and death linked to COVID-19. The other, which looked at health outcomes more broadly, found that the more conservative a state’s policies, the shorter the lives of working-age people.
The reasons are many, but, increasingly, it is state — and not just federal — policies that have begun to shape the economic, family, environmental and behavioral circumstances that affect people’s well-being. Some states have expanded their social safety nets, raising minimum wages and offering earned income tax credits while using excise taxes to discourage behaviors — such as smoking — that have deleterious health consequences. Other states have moved in the opposite direction.
Harvard researchers analyzed data on COVID-19 mortality rates and the stress on hospital intensive care units across all 435 congressional districts from April 2021 to March 2022. They also examined congressional members’ overall voting records, how they voted on four coronavirus relief bills, and whether the governor’s office and legislature of a state were controlled by one party.
The study, published this month in the Lancet Regional Health-Americas, found that the more conservative the voting records of members of Congress and state legislators, the higher the age-adjusted COVID mortality rates — even after taking into account the racial, education and income characteristics of each congressional district along with vaccination rates.
Do you believe this, about soon-to-die mothers? I don’t believe this — I think it’s exactly the kind of bogus prediction that now dominates “science”:
With abortion services no longer legal nationwide, university researchers have estimated that maternal deaths could increase by up to 25 to 30 percent, worsening the nation’s maternal mortality and morbidity crisis.
It’s long past time for us to go back to the reliable medical advice that used to be found so readily on what was then our social media.
