«

»

Dec 16 2016

Fake News: Part 1

Here at DocuDharma and The Stars Hollow Gazette we have the deepest respect for our readers and only publish the most vile and scurrilous rumors which we very helpfully label for you so you can quickly sully your social media accounts with our lies, propaganda, and disinformation.

Please tell all your friends because we desperately want to become an Internet media juggernaut and monetize our sites and eventual sell out for Billions!

Here’s some juicy clickbait I came across, see if you can identify the source-

Researchers have developed a new theory: Evolution favored small female pelvises and large newborns for good reasons.

And, the researchers said, the rise of cesarean sections — the surgical delivery of a baby — in recent decades may be contributing to an even bigger gap between the size of newborns and their mothers’ pelvises. In fact, the researchers estimate that the regular use of C-sections has led to a 10 to 20 percent increase in the gap between female pelvis width and babies’ size.

Evolution is happening even in our modern society,” said study lead author Philipp Mitteroecker, an assistant professor with the Department of Theoretical Biology at the University of Vienna, Austria.

But, the human female pelvis has remained small, despite evolution, the researchers said.

“The dimensions of the infant head and shoulders are very close to and even exceed the dimensions of the mother’s birth canal in humans,” said Wenda Trevathan. She’s a professor emeritus of anthropology at New Mexico State University.

In the new study, Mitteroecker and his colleagues created a mathematical model that they believe shows that evolution favored bigger babies because it helped the species survive.

“Medical data show that larger newborns have higher survival rates and are less affected by several diseases,” he said.

The researchers also looked at cesarean section births.

According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, cesarean surgeries have been around for hundreds of years, but in earlier times they were typically performed on dead or dying mothers in order to save the baby.

There’s no firm evidence that Julius Caesar was a product of this procedure, even though it may be named after him.

In recent years, cesarean rates have grown around the world even though there’s controversy over how many of them are actually needed. Approximately one in three U.S. births is by cesarean, according to the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

“If women have the idea that bigger babies are healthier, and to a point they are, they may choose surgical delivery to have a bigger baby,” Trevathan said.

The authors of the new study estimate that the growth in cesarean sections over the last 60 years has actually affected evolution by making the gap between pelvic size and newborn size even larger.

Wouldn’t this lead to more difficult non-cesarean births? “That’s what we predicted,” Mitteroecker said.

However, “It is difficult to judge how much the rate of birth complications has really increased,” he said.

What’s next as humans continue to evolve? “That’s not easy to foresee,” Mitteroecker said. “But I don’t think that one day every baby needs to be delivered by C-sections.”

Here’s another one-

Human ingenuity increasingly allows us to fight back against “natural selection” and, in effect, influence the path of our own evolution.

Take Cesarean sections, the procedure in which babies are born via surgical incision rather than through the mother’s birth canal. Some form of the procedure has been around for hundreds of years, but only in the past few decades has it become commonplace.

In the US, C-sections now account for 30 percent of all births, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But back in 1970, that figure was around 5 percent. So while C-sections have only been widely available to mothers for just a couple of generations, already scientists are speculating that the procedure is affecting human evolution.

Where C-sections are available, the risk of an obstructed pregnancy drops considerably. “Most cases of fetopelvic disproportion … were lethal without C-sections,” Philipp Mitteröcker, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Vienna, writes me. “Hence these mothers were not able to pass on their genes encoding for a narrow pelvis and or a large fetal size to the next generation.”

C-sections changed birth survival rates, “which is, per definition, a change of selection pressure,” Mitteröcker says. And when selection pressures change, we evolve.

Mitteröcker doesn’t have direct evidence for this; rather, he and his colleagues have worked out a mathematical model that predicts how many more cases of fetopelvic disproportion ought to be occurring now that C-sections are commonplace. And according to this model, the rate of fetopelvic disproportion has risen from 3 percent to around 3.66 percent in the past few decades.

Put more simply: He predicts more babies whose heads are too big for their mothers’ hips, because, presumably, the genes that code for narrow hips and big heads have been allowed to propagate.

This is just a prediction, he says. “To my knowledge, this has not been shown empirically yet.”

”C-sections that matter for evolution are only the ones that actual saved lives and hence were really necessary,” Mitteröcker says. “Our model says nothing about the many C-section carried out for other reasons.”

Again, this is just a theory. Mitteröcker says it would take a study of many generations of births, complete with hereditary data and skeleton size data, to confirm the prediction. “We are about to carry out these studies,” he says.

Folks, this is bad science. Fake News!

Not just that but of a particularly Anti-Vaxxer, Eugenicky, Lysenkoism sort, allow me to debunk.

Debunk

noun: descend from the upper levels of a vertically stacked bed.

In the first piece we “learn” that people don’t bother to click links. Proof that “Evolution favored small female pelvises and large newborns,” is U.S. death rate in pregnancy, childbirth raises “great concern” which among other things tells us-

For every 100,000 live births, nearly 24 women died during, or within 42 days after pregnancy in 2014. That was up from nearly 19 per 100,000 in 2000

With the 2014 numbers, the United States would rank 30th on a list of 31 countries reporting data to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — beating out only Mexico.

Now, those are interesting facts and show us how poor U.S. Healthcare is, but I defy you to find any reference at all to “evolution”, “small female pelvis”, or even “large newborn”. To be fair it does mention “newborn”. You could look it up, I have.

Next “regular use of C-sections has led to a 10 to 20 percent increase in the gap between female pelvis width and babies’ size,” proven by-

The research, published in the British Medical Journal, found that newborns delivered by C-section are more likely to develop obesity, asthma, and type 1 diabetes when they get older.

In a meta-analysis of studies, Dr. Jan Blustein of New York University’s School of Medicine and Dr. Jianmen Liu of Peking University found 20 studies that link C-sections to type 1 diabetes, 23 studies that suggested a tie with asthma and another nine that found an association with obesity.

In the U.S., the overall childhood asthma rate is 8.4 percent, which jumps to 9.5 percent among those born via C-section. The obesity rate among children delivered vaginally is 15.8 percent, versus 19.4 percent among kids born by C-section. Type 1 diabetes occurs in 2.13 of every 1,000 infants born from C-section, compared to 1.79 per 1,000 babies delivered vaginally.

“It is clear that cesarean-born children have worse health, but further research is needed to establish whether it is the cesarean that causes disease, or whether other factors are at play,” Dr. Blustein said in a press release. “Getting definitive answers will take many years of further research. In the interim, we must make decisions based on the evidence that we have. To me, that evidence says that it is reasonable to believe that cesarean has the potential for long-term adverse health consequences for children.”

Bluetein told CBS News, “People have always known the consequences of vaginal delivery — brain damage, cerebral palsy, shoulder dystocia — but there is not much discussion of the long-term downsides of cesarean delivery.”

Let’s take a look at those margins shall we? Accepting the numbers at face value we find a 1.1% greater chance of asthma, a 3.6% greater chance of obesity, and a .34% greater chance of diabetes. As someone who has worked with statistics I can tell you that asthma and diabetes definitely fall in the margin of error and, depending on methodology, obesity does too. I’m sure the polls that had Hillary Clinton winning the Presidency had much larger sample sizes.

And even Dr. Blustein, whom I now consign to that Circle of Hell reserved for pseudo-scientist Anti-Vaxxers, concedes that these have to be balanced against the known “consequences of vaginal delivery — brain damage, cerebral palsy, shoulder dystocia”.

Not to mention the death of the mother.

Just so your kid has less chance of being fat? Also without consideration that large children carried beyond term may require a C-Section to survive because they’re… large.

Now I like Bill Nye, The Science Guy. I happen to disagree with him about Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) food. He feels there is no alternative and I think it’s a scam by Monsanto to sell RoundUp (basically Agent Orange). His citation in defense of this is a contemptible canard.

“I feel we have a real problem of anti-science right now,” Nye said. “If you have people who are voters and taxpayers who don’t believe in science, we’re gonna fall behind as a society.”

“Climate change is real,” he said in an online video. “Let’s keep in mind that there’s something about which you should give a f***.”

Braver asked, “Have you become politicized?”

“Yeah, well, people look at me as a political figure, for sure.”

“And is that okay with you?”

“Well, what’s the alternative?” Nye replied. “I mean, if climate change is objectively an enormous problem, and if you think it’s because I’m a progressive and you’re a conservative, then that’s you putting it on me. I really work to be open-minded.”

There is no doubt his point regarding evolution, which is barely mentioned in the cited article, is true (he’s an evolutionist and so am I). Evolution is all around you and happening every day, even to humans.

We will return to evolution.

Finally in the links we find this statement by Wenda Trevathan, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at New Mexico State University-

“The dimensions of the infant head and shoulders are very close to and even exceed the dimensions of the mother’s birth canal in humans.”

Supported by a story about Zika Virus induced Microcephaly- Zika birth defect may surface months after birth.

The findings come from a study of 13 Brazilian babies whose heads all appeared normal at birth but then grew much more slowly than normal.

Most people infected with Zika never develop symptoms, but infection during pregnancy can cause devastating birth defects, including microcephaly, in which a baby’s skull is much smaller than expected because the brain hasn’t developed properly.

Microcephaly is diagnosed based on a measurement of the baby’s head circumference. It can be done during pregnancy using b>ultrasound, or after the baby is born. Doctors then compare the measurement to standard sizes of other kids, based on gender and age.

Investigators are working to determine what proportion of Zika-infected women have babies with birth defects, and how the risk varies based on when during the pregnancy the infection occurred. Earlier research has suggested that 1 percent to 14 percent of Brazilian mothers infected in the first three months of pregnancy had babies with microcephaly and that the risk falls when infections happen later in a pregnancy.

WHO’s Salama called the risk “small but significant, but it’s definitely a moving target as well.”

What is the author trying to suggest here? That the solution to small pelvises, big full-term children, and C-Sections is Microcephalic Zika babies? I’ll note that the author I’m talking about here is the author of the underlying piece, the one who thought these links were relevant.

Debunk- Part 2

noun: using your feet and legs to dump someone sleeping above you on the floor.

Now for the second piece. I won’t waste your time with incestuous links like those found in the first one. These are to reputable U.S. Government sources (ok, 1 to Harvard which is only semi-reputable). Instead I’ll illustrate why anyone with the least understanding of biology, genetics, evolution, math, physics, and history would reject Mitteröcker’s claims (as reported).

True enough that our control of our environment (such as it is) has effected our evolution, but not to accelerate it, rather to retard it. Once you have achieved the ability to modify “selective pressures” what is the advantage of modifying your genome (except for sport, which equates to Eugenics)?

What? Eugenics too strong a word for you?

Where C-sections are available, the risk of an obstructed pregnancy drops considerably. “Most cases of fetopelvic disproportion … were lethal without C-sections,” Philipp Mitteröcker, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Vienna, writes me. “Hence these mothers were not able to pass on their genes encoding for a narrow pelvis and or a large fetal size to the next generation.”

He predicts more babies whose heads are too big for their mothers’ hips, because, presumably, the genes that code for narrow hips and big heads have been allowed to propagate.

Eugenicky enough for you? They should be allowed to die in childbirth, mother and baby alike lest they pollute our gene pool. Next we’ll come for the rest, the birth defects, the mentally ill, the chronically sick, the Gypsies, the Jews, the Politically Subversive, the non-Blonde (Homosexuals take care of themselves, they don’t breed). Sure, at first it will only be forced sterilization, but why not work camps? They’re just a lot of non-productive mouths to feed and detract from the security of the Homeland.

I recall another Austrian who thought that way. Hmm… who was it?

Again, this is just a theory. Mitteröcker says it would take a study of many generations of births, complete with hereditary data and skeleton size data, to confirm the prediction. “We are about to carry out these studies.”

Calling Dr. Mengele. Dr. Himmler? Dr. Heydrich?

And once again, shall we look at the numbers? What is that margin of that “fetopelvic disproportion”? .66%? Sorry Philipp. Statistically insignificant by any measure regardless of sample size (a Universe of 13 like the Zika victims? Small Universes are common in epidemiological studies but how small is yours? Did you ever even take Stats 101?).

Trofim Lysenko thought that “rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that ‘natural cooperation’ was observed in nature as opposed to ‘natural selection'”.

Well, that’s not how it works. Even given “selective pressures” both desirable and undesirable characteristics (which are entirely subjective) take generations of breeding to manifest themselves (absent direct genetic manipulation). Mitteröcker says himself that in 1970 the rate of C-Sections was 5%. That’s 46 years. How many human generations is that? Even if each girl got pregnant at 14- only 3.2.

Mitteröcker doesn’t have direct evidence for this; rather, he and his colleagues have worked out a mathematical model that predicts how many more cases of fetopelvic disproportion ought to be occurring now that C-sections are commonplace.

This is just a prediction, he says. “To my knowledge, this has not been shown empirically yet.”

Not Science. Fail.

Guessing Time!

So I ask you where did I pick this story up from? Stormfront? Maybe Top Conservative News or Metapedia (3 very popular Neo-Nazi Racist websites)?

Sorry, My first example is CBS News

C-section births may give rise to evolutionary changes
By Randy Dotinga, CBS News
December 6, 2016, 3:42 PM

Citations-

U.S. death rate in pregnancy, childbirth raises “great concern”
By Amy Norton, CBS News
August 9, 2016

C-section births linked to long-term child health problems
By Amy Kraft, CBS News
June 11, 2015

Bill Nye the Science Guy: Here to change the world
by Rita Braver, CBS News
July 10, 2016

Zika birth defect may surface months after birth
Associated Press, CBS News
November 22, 2016

Incestuous at best.

My second? Vox.

Has the rise in C-sections affected human evolution? This scientist predicts yes.
by Brian Resnick, Vox
Dec 7, 2016

Media Meta Criticism Part 1

You know, that some Austrian Assistant Professor idiot preaches pseudo-scientific Eugenic Genocide doesn’t concern me nearly as much as the willingness of Media Gatekeepers to believe it.

Are you going to claim that CBS News and Vox are not enough to lend credibility to this “Fake News”? Like all the rest they’re going out on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit to harvest the eyeballs and get the “news”.

It is Legacy Media like The New York Times and Washington Post, not to mention all the Cable and Network TV organizations, that are responsible for popularizing and validating “Fake News” like the “Benghazi Scandal” and other far right fever dreams, not legitimate sites like Naked Capitalism, Truthout, and Common Dreams who point out the falsehood of Establishment Neoliberal Media Memes and Tropes.

Meta Disclaimer

DocuDharma and The Stars Hollow Gazette are privately funded. They’re cheap enough that even I can afford them and I am by no means rich. Not that I pay the rent, I am an artist and have a patron who indulges me with canvas and paint.

While I have entertained different ideas in the past (mostly related to democratizing) I don’t require or desire your monetary support at the moment and am beholden to no advertiser. If you have a contribution to give in the form of content or comment it is more than sufficient gratitude.

I say this lest you believe my hyperbole above and conclude I will ever sell out or surrender.

“Nuts.”- Anthony Clement McAuliffe

1 comment

  1. ek hornbeck

    Vent Hole

Comments have been disabled.