Mike Bloomberg steps in again to fund UN climate body in response to Trump's moves. Really!

What a stubborn 86 year old fool! How senile and demented is he?

Mike Bloomberg steps in again to fund UN climate body in response to Trump's moves - Jewish Telegraphic Agency "The Jewish billionaire is one of the top donors to climate action in the world."

Bloomberg Philanthropies is donating $600 million to four historically Black medical schools

Good news! American greatness/exceptionalism is expressed by American generosity and benevolence!

"The amount Bloomberg Philanthropies is donating to four historically Black medical schools: Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, D.C.; Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tenn.; Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta; and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine & Science in L.A. "

The Wall Street Journal What's news

The 46th President's Biggest Billionaire Donors

Recommendable! Number one: Michael Bloomberg

The Future of Supercells with damaging hail and deadly tornadoes in the United States. Really!

This is more like the superspread of Global Warming hoax and Climate Change religion propaganda and demagoguery! The ideology of anthropogenic climate change has permeated and guided this research!

This is alarmism and hysteria dressed up as science! This pretense of knowledge reeks!

This is pseudoscience research published by the American Meteorological Society!

Climate models are essentially junk especially if they are used  to simulate for up to 100 year into the future! Too many things about climate are still unknown or little understood! Any serious and sincere scientist knows that! We can not even forecast weather accurately for more than 48 hours! The complexity of weather and climate is similar when it comes to forecasting!

One consolation: The senior author of this study, i.e. Vittorio A. Gensini, has only a very low citation count of 1302 according to Google Scholar. Hopefully, it will stay low thanks to studies like that!!!

Who helps spreading such demagoguery? Bloomberg School of Public Health via its daily newsletter! Mr. Bloomberg do you know what you are paying for?

From the abstract:

"A supercell is a distinct type of intense, long-lived thunderstorm that is defined by its quasi-steady, rotating updraft. Supercells are responsible for most damaging hail and deadly tornadoes, causing billions of dollars in losses and hundreds of casualties annually. This research uses high-resolution, convection-permitting climate simulations across 15-yr epochs that span the twenty-first century to assess how supercells may change across the United States. Specifically, the study explores how late-twentieth-century supercell populations compare with their late-twenty-first-century counterparts for two—intermediate and pessimistic—anthropogenic climate change trajectories. An algorithm identifies, segments, and tracks supercells in the simulation output using updraft helicity, which measures the magnitude of corkscrew flow through a storm’s updraft and is a common proxy for supercells. Results reveal that supercells will be more frequent and intense in future climates, with robust spatiotemporal shifts in their populations. Supercells are projected to become more numerous in regions of the eastern United States, while decreasing in frequency in portions of the Great Plains. Supercell risk is expected to escalate outside of the traditional severe storm season, with supercells and their perils likely to increase in late winter and early spring months under both emissions scenarios. Conversely, the latter part of the severe storm season may be curtailed, with supercells expected to decrease midsummer through early fall. These results suggest the potential for more significant tornadoes, hail, and extreme rainfall that, when combined with an increasingly vulnerable society, may produce disastrous consequences."

The Future of Supercells in the United States in: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Volume 104 Issue 1 (2023) (open access)

We are doomed! (Caution: Satire)

Fig. 3. Mean annual supercell track counts on an 80 km grid for the three simulation epochs: (a) HIST, (b) FUTR4.5, and (d) FUTR8.5. (c),(e) The mean annual supercell count track differences, or deltas, between FUTR4.5 and HIST and between FUTR8.5 and HIST, respectively

Bloomberg School of Public Health conceals transgender individual was the latest school mass shooter

This is disgusting! Latest newsletter does not mention the background of the shooter!

Such crass ideological blindness is breathtaking! Shame on the Johns Hopkins University!

Michael Bloomberg do you know what your money is paying for!

Global Health NOW: ‘The Ultimate Crime’—Again; Insulin Out of Reach; and Curbing Black Lung

Small rise in breast cancer risk seen with most hormonal birth control. Really!

Another example of irresponsible, if not reckless alarmism and hysteria! Should women be concerned? Probably not!

This study appears to focus only on Progestagen-only contraceptives! It is only one study about women in one country (UK). The researchers say they controlled for all kinds of factors, but how reliable is that?

Where in the (long) abstract with tons of details does it say 0.5 percentage point increase? Is the study not even implying it is only a 0.25 percentage point increase (see adjusted OR (odds ratio?) column in chart below)?

"Most forms of hormonal contraceptives confer the same small increase in breast cancer risk, according to a new PLOS Medicine study; whether pills, implants, IUD, or injections, researchers found women under 50 who took hormonal contraceptives had what amounted to a half percent absolute increase of breast cancer risk. STAT" (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Global Health NOW). Mr. Bloomberg do you know what your money is paying for!

From the (long) abstract:

"Background

Current or recent use of combined oral contraceptives (containing oestrogen+progestagen) has been associated with a small increase in breast cancer risk. Progestagen-only contraceptive use is increasing, but information on associated risks is limited. We aimed to assess breast cancer risk associated with current or recent use of different types of hormonal contraceptives in premenopausal women, with particular emphasis on progestagen-only preparations.

Methods and findings

Hormonal contraceptive prescriptions recorded prospectively in a UK primary care database (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]) were compared in a nested case–control study for 9,498 women aged <50 years with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed in 1996 to 2017, and for 18,171 closely matched controls. On average, 7.3 (standard deviation [SD] 4.6) years of clinical records were available for each case and their matched controls prior to the date of diagnosis. Conditional logistic regression yielded odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of breast cancer by the hormonal contraceptive type last prescribed, controlled for age, GP practice, body mass index, number of recorded births, time since last birth, and alcohol intake. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies published between 01 January 1995 and 01 November 2022 that reported on the association between current or recent progestagen-only contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in premenopausal women. Fixed effects meta-analyses combined the CPRD results with previously published results from 12 observational studies for progestagen-only preparations.

Overall, 44% (4,195/9,498) of women with breast cancer and 39% (7,092/18,171) of matched controls had a hormonal contraceptive prescription an average of 3.1 (SD 3.7) years before breast cancer diagnosis (or equivalent date for controls). About half the prescriptions were for progestagen-only preparations. Breast cancer ORs were similarly and significantly raised if the last hormonal contraceptive prescription was for oral combined, oral progestagen-only, injected progestagen, or progestagen-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs): ORs = 1.23 (95% CI [1.14 to 1.32]; p < 0.001), 1.26 (95% CI [1.16 to 1.37]; p < 0.001), 1.25 (95% CI [1.07 to 1.45]; p = 0.004), and 1.32 (95% CI [1.17 to 1.49]; p < 0.001), respectively. Our meta-analyses yielded significantly raised relative risks (RRs) for current or recent use of progestagen-only contraceptives: oral = 1.29 (95% CI [1.21 to 1.37]; heterogeneity χ25 = 6.7; p = 0.2), injected = 1.18 (95% CI [1.07 to 1.30]; heterogeneity χ28 = 22.5; p = 0.004), implanted = 1.28 (95% CI [1.08 to 1.51]; heterogeneity χ23 = 7.3; p = 0.06), and IUDs = 1.21 (95% CI [1.14 to 1.28]; heterogeneity χ24 = 7.9; p = 0.1). When the CPRD results were combined with those from previous published findings (which included women from a wider age range), the resulting 15-year absolute excess risk associated with 5 years use of oral combined or progestagen-only contraceptives in high-income countries was estimated at: 8 per 100,000 users from age 16 to 20 years and 265 per 100,000 users from age 35 to 39 years. The main limitation of the study design was that, due to the nature of the CPRD data and most other prescription databases, information on contraceptive use was recorded during a defined period only, with information before entry into the database generally being unavailable. This means that although our findings provide evidence about the short-term associations between hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer risk, they do not provide information regarding longer-term associations, or the impact of total duration of contraceptive use on breast cancer risk.

Conclusions

This study provides important new evidence that current or recent use of progestagen-only contraceptives is associated with a slight increase in breast cancer risk, which does not appear to vary by mode of delivery, and is similar in magnitude to that associated with combined hormonal contraceptives. Given that the underlying risk of breast cancer increases with advancing age, the absolute excess risk associated with use of either type of oral contraceptive is estimated to be smaller in women who use it at younger rather than at older ages. Such risks need be balanced against the benefits of using contraceptives during the childbearing years."

Small rise in breast cancer risk seen with most hormonal birth control

Combined and progestagen-only hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer risk: A UK nested case–control study and meta-analysis (open access)

Combined and progestagen-only hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer risk: A UK nested case–control study and meta-analysis

Scotland’s minimum pricing of alcohol linked to 13% drop in alcohol-related deaths, study finds. Really!

This study (not published yet) has the strong appearance of pseudoscience! 

Are these scientists or government sycophants? Probably, both!

This is also another example of terrible government paternalism!

This study was featured by one of the usual suspects: Bloomberg School of Public Health. Mr. Bloomberg, do you know what your money is buying?

Like prohibition, government price controls are some of the worst policies to deal with a social issue. This is well known and established for more than a century! Smuggling and questionable and dangerous booze making are triggered by such bad policies.

E.g. what about all the responsible drinkers (the majority of drinkers), who have to pay now higher prices as well? Why do they have to pay more?

Instead of focusing on the minority of people with alcohol abuse disorder, governments still prefer one size fits all solutions at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century! And it is cheered on by some dubious scientists putting out such studies. The study even admits this fact of a well recognized minority (see yellow highlight below) is prone to overconsumption.

"Today, Public Health Scotland (PHS) and The Lancet publish new evidence showing the impact of alcohol minimum unit pricing (MUP) on deaths and hospital admissions attributable to alcohol consumption. Carried out in collaboration with the University of Glasgow, the study evaluated the impact of MUP on alcohol health harms, over the first two-and-half years of the policy. ...
"The findings highlight that the largest reductions were found for males, and for those living in the 40% most deprived areas, groups which are known to experience disproportionally high levels of alcohol health harms in Scotland. ..."

Scotland’s minimum pricing linked to 13% drop in alcohol-related deaths, study finds | Alcohol | The Guardian

Report Highlights The Impact Of Minimum Unit Pricing (Mup) On Deaths And Hospital Admissions

Johns Hopkins University: A New Clue to Covid-19’s Origins Wuhan raccoon dogs

Mr. Bloomberg do you realize what nonsense your money bought! Incredible!

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health still can not let go of the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19! How much money is this school receiving from China? Perhaps the most important question!

"Researchers analyzing early data collected from a Wuhan animal market may have uncovered a clue to COVID-19’s origins: genetic material from raccoon dogs.

Why this is important: The not-yet-published analysis provides the “strongest evidence” yet that animals that could be infected with SARS-CoV-2 were present in the market in late 2019 and early 2020 when the virus first emerged, according to The Telegraph. ..."

Global Health NOW: A New Clue to Covid-19’s Origins; Why Aren’t There More Women Leaders in Global Health?; and Keanu: He's a Real Fun-Guy

The latest imagined carrier of a global pandemic!

Cardiovascular Risk Factor and obesity have increased in US Adults Aged 20 to 44 Years, from 2009 to 2020

Not good news!

How much are social media, video games and the like to blame? Our recreational behavior has changed significantly over the past several decades.

How about e-bikes? When I see teenagers on e-bikes these days, they do not use the pedals anymore like our generation used to do, they just sit on the bike and enjoy the fast ride. A sign of the times!

What is the ludicrous and desperate spin of the leftist JHU Bloomberg School of Public Health:

"Disparities [???]: Racial inequities [???] in the US contribute to problems like food insecurity [???] —which in turn drive worsening outcomes:"

Michael Bloomberg do you know or are you aware of what is being done in your name and with your money? Doubtful!

Have you ever wondered where the expression spin doctor comes from? 😊

"... Findings  In this serial cross-sectional study of 12 924 adults aged 20 to 44 years, there were increases in the prevalence of diabetes (from 3.0% to 4.1%) and obesity (from 32.7% to 40.9%), no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension (from 9.3% to 11.5%), and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia (from 40.5% to 36.1%) from 2009-2010 to 2017-2020. Black young adults had the highest rates of hypertension over the study period, and increases in hypertension were observed among Mexican American and other Hispanic adults, while Mexican American adults experienced a significant rise in diabetes. Blood pressure control did not significantly change among young adults treated for hypertension, while glycemic control remained suboptimal throughout the study period. ..."

From the abstract:

"Abstract

Importance  Declines in cardiovascular mortality have stagnated in the US over the past decade, in part related to worsening risk factor control in older adults. Little is known about how the prevalence, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors have changed among young adults aged 20 to 44 years.

Objective  To determine if the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and tobacco use), treatment rates, and control changed among adults aged 20 to 44 years from 2009 through March 2020, overall and by sex and race and ethnicity.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Serial cross-sectional analysis of adults aged 20 to 44 years in the US participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009-2010 to 2017–March 2020).

Main Outcomes and Measures  National trends in the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and smoking history; treatment rates for hypertension and diabetes; and blood pressure and glycemic control in those receiving treatment.

Results  Among 12 924 US adults aged 20 to 44 years (mean age, 31.8 years; 50.6% women), the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% (95% CI, 8.1%-10.5%) in 2009-2010 and 11.5% (95% CI, 9.6%-13.4%) in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes (from 3.0% [95% CI, 2.2%-3.7%] to 4.1% [95% CI, 3.5%-4.7%]) and obesity (from 32.7% [95% CI, 30.1%-35.3%] to 40.9% [95% CI, 37.5%-44.3%]) increased from 2009-2010 to 2017-2020, while the prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased (from 40.5% [95% CI, 38.6%-42.3%] to 36.1% [95% CI, 33.5%-38.7%]). Black adults had high rates of hypertension across the study period (2009-2010: 16.2% [95% CI, 14.0%-18.4%]; 2017-2020: 20.1% [95% CI, 16.8%-23.3%]), and significant increases in hypertension were observed among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% [95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%] to 9.5% [95% CI, 7.3%-11.7%]) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% [95% CI, 2.1%-6.8%] to 10.5% [95% CI, 6.8%-14.3%]), while Mexican American adults had a significant rise in diabetes (from 4.3% [95% CI, 2.3%-6.2%] to 7.5% [95% CI, 5.4%-9.6%]). The percentage of young adults treated for hypertension who achieved blood pressure control did not significantly change (from 65.0% [95% CI, 55.8%-74.2%] in 2009-2010 to 74.8% [95% CI, 67.5%-82.1%] in 2017-2020], while glycemic control among young adults receiving treatment for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (2009-2010: 45.5% [95% CI, 27.7%-63.3%]) to 2017-2020: 56.6% [95% CI, 39.2%-73.9%]).

Conclusions and Relevance  In the US, diabetes and obesity increased among young adults from 2009 to March 2020, while hypertension did not change and hyperlipidemia declined. There was variation in trends by race and ethnicity."

"... The national increases in diabetes and obesity among young adults in the US have major public health implications. The rise in obesity—to more than 40% in young adults18,19—corresponds with increases in sedentary behaviors over the same period and likely contributed to other cardiometabolic trends observed in our study. ..."

Cardiovascular Risk Factor Prevalence, Treatment, and Control in US Adults Aged 20 to 44 Years, 2009 to March 2020 | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network (open access)

UN Special Envoy Michael Bloomberg wants to shutter or cancel a quarter of the world’s coal plant capacity

Who is this dangerous 80 year old fool of a billionaire! Who made him a U.N. Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions!

Who would win the contest of most demented and senile person of interest? The 46th President or Bloomberg? 😊

They say money can't buy you love? Neither can it buy wisdom and common sense!

I don't think the Chinese communists will let this old fool come anywhere near their over 1,100 existing coal fired power plants anytime soon, nor will they stop building several news ones every year. Or should the Chinese communists relent, what is the price?

"... During opening remarks at the United Nations Climate Action: Race to Zero and Resilience Forum, Mike Bloomberg kicked off the Bloomberg Countdown by announcing the first climate action: the expansion of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ efforts to accelerate the global clean energy transition in 15 additional developing countries where demand for power is projected to grow rapidly, and there is abundant potential for renewable energy, such as solar and wind. his marks the next phase of Bloomberg’s commitment at COP26 in Glasgow to help shutter or cancel a quarter of the world’s coal plant capacity. ..."

UN Special Envoy Michael R. Bloomberg Kicks Off Bloomberg-wide Countdown to COP27 | Press | Bloomberg LP

Source: Statista

Johns Hopkins University accuses Israel of “unspeakable horrors” against children based on a UNICEF report

Glaring antisemitism at elite U.S. universities!

"Children caught up in conflict are subjected to “unspeakable horrors”—amounting to a  staggering average of 71 violations every day, according to a UNICEF analysis published yesterday, VOA reports.

UNICEF verified over 250,000 grave violations in total, against children in 30+ armed conflict settings across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America between 2005 and 2020 ...
The worst hot spots: Children in just 5 places—Afghanistan, Israel and the State of Palestine [???], Syria, Yemen, and Somalia—bore the brunt of all casualties, 82%, from 2016-2022. ..."

Global Health NOW: Tiny Shoulders Bear the Brunt of War; Much Ado About Omicron Boosters; and Post-Roe, A Personal Data Battlefield

Mike Bloomberg reportedly considering Hillary Clinton as running mate

Please Mr. Bloomberg go right ahead choosing Hillary as your running mate! The reelection of Trump will be a walk in the park!

Mike Bloomberg reportedly considering Hillary Clinton as running mate

Michael Bloomberg Knows A Con When He Sees One?

Posted: 7/28/2016

During his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Mr. Bloomberg made a number of eyebrow raising remarks about his fellow New York billionaire Donald Trump.

He earnestly claimed he knows a con when he sees one. Really? Well, those who can truly tell the difference are con men themselves or are extremely gifted. I suspect this line was intended as a hard hitter like the infamous TV spot against Barry Goldwater accusing Goldwater of being trigger happy with nukes.

It surprises me that Michael Bloomberg’s life and business are as if sanitized clean when you search for negative issues. E.g. the Wikipedia articles on him or his business are clean as can be. Well, I do faintly remember that there were scandals about Bloomberg Terminals in the 1990s something along the lines that Bloomberg price quotes were deliberately used for front running etc.

Well, perhaps Mr. Bloomberg did not have as many lawsuits against his business or his business did not file as many bankruptcies as Mr. Trump. However, Mr. Bloomberg and his money operate behind the curtain to finance a number of issues and to manipulate public opinion. Most famously, he spends large sums of money to undermine the Second Amendment and to promote gun control. As a mayor of New York he became a nanny (e.g. he banned smoking in private bars, sugary drinks, and trans fats). His vacillating between both major parties are famous. What he spent on his mayoral campaigns was stunning (to the tune of $650 million in total of his own money to become and be mayor of NYC and be reelected; source).

Mr. Bloomberg also claimed he that he didn’t need a million dollar check from his father to start his company. Well, it did probably not hurt that Mr. Bloomberg received $10 million as a severance payment in 1981 when Solomon Brothers was acquired (source). It did not hurt either that Merrill Lynch invested $30 million in his new company (source).

Boycott New York City

Posted: 12/6/2015  Updated: 12/27/2015

Enough is enough! Any freedom loving human should avoid visiting New York City until the people there vote better pro-individual liberty politicians into office especially better mayors. Bloomberg was bad, de Blasio is not better. NYC is becoming more and more a bastion of socialism.

This week, we learnt of two new acts of government paternalism established by the city of New York:

1. Hoverboards will be banned from streets
2. Salt content of food will be mandated to be posted only by certain businesses

This comes on top of all other bans passed by New York’s politicians:

1. Guns
2. Sugar drinks (this I believe failed, but NYC attempted to ban it under Bloomberg)
3. Trans fats
4. Smoking in privately owned bars and restaurants
5. The board of the New York City's MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) voted in April 2015 to ban political and other potentially controversial noncommercial ads on buses and trains.

Autism Linked To Obesity In Mothers

Background

The Wall Street Journal (my favorite US news media, one of the best news media in the world) reported on 4/19/2012 that a new study published in the Journal Pediatrics found links between obesity of the mother and Autism.

Some Excerpts From The Wall Street Journal Article

Full credit is given here to the Wall Street Journal and its article by the same title “Autism Linked to Obesity in Mothers” published on 4/19/2012 authored by Shirley S. Wang.

“… the announcement last month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that autism-spectrum disorders …  affect one in 88 U.S. children, up from one in 110 in a 2009 report.”

“About a third of U.S. women of reproductive age are considered obese, the authors said.”

“It [study] showed that compared to nonobese mothers, those who were obese before pregnancy had a 60% increase in the likelihood of having a child with autism and a doubling in risk of having a child with another type of cognitive or behavioral delay.”

“The risk was even more pronounced when mothers who had high blood pressure or diabetes before or during pregnancy were included in the analysis.”

Myths Debunked

How many wished to believe environmental factors were to blame for the dramatic increase in the diagnosis of autism in children?

As if this new research was made to please New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to justify his stupid, authoritarian measures.

Other Causes For The Fast And Dramatic Rise Of Autistic Children?

Increased parental awareness and hypersensitivity?

They say follow the money trail: Doctors make more money with such vague and broad diagnoses like Autism spectrum disorders. Public schools will receive more money for special education needs. Public teachers make more money teaching special education students.

Obesity – A Modifiable Risk Factor

Translation of this scientific jargon: Now, would be parents should have a much stronger motivation to lose weight through better diet and exercise.

The Biggest Loser Body Fat Bathroom Scale

Bravo! Californians Reject Tobacco Tax Increase

A Supposedly Good Cause And 
Prominent Supporters Was Not Enough

Common sense prevailed!

Reuters News reports that Californian voters narrowly rejected Proposition 29, which would have raised the current tax of $0.87 by $1 to $1.87 (a 114% increase) for each packet of cigarettes. However, final results will not be in before early July.

The revenue raised from Proposition 29, estimated to be $735 million annually, would be used to fund cancer prevention and research initiatives.

Mr. Bloomberg was reported to have donated half a million dollar to advance this proposition. Lance Armstrong, a testicular not lung cancer survivor, promoted it with about $1.5. million

Smokers As Easy Prey

As if smokers have not already been hunted like witches for decades. Even if all smoking voters (about 14% of California’s adult population) and their families had objected, the much larger majority of non-smokers could have easily defeated them (tyranny of the majority).

Why should smokers be singled out to fund cancer research?

Who will be the next group to be so targeted?

If you want to make smokers pay, e.g. raise health insurance premiums.

Timing Is Everything

The ballot took place at a minor election date, which likely contributed to low voter turnout.

Sin Taxes Are Sin

Any tax that is as narrowly defined as a tobacco tax or alcohol tax ought to be abolished. Many of them are arbitrary and the result of particular historical events.

Sin taxes are highly regressive and have little purported effect. On the contrary, e.g. high alcohol taxes promote dangerous, unhealthy moon shining.