The ABC News medical unit wants to warn you about a stunning new risk to your health: fast food. Amazingly, it "ups your stroke risk" ABC tells us. Of course, we all know that eating too much fast food is bad for us, right? Well ABC has even more startling news. It isn't necessarily only eating the stuff that'll kill you. You see, ABC wants us to believe that just living near fast food places will kill you, too.
Now stop laughing. I think ABC is serious with this stuff.
ABC unleashed this "news" piece on February 19 with a headline that screams "Living Near Fast Food Ups Stroke Risk" and based it on yet another one of those groundbreaking "studies" that are always touted as "science." This piece is filled with dire warnings and shocking conclusions... unless you actually read it, that is. Then you find it is really built on conjecture, maybes and assumptions instead of hard proof. So much for science.
But, first the scary claims:
People living in neighborhoods where fast food restaurants are plentiful appear to have a higher risk of stroke than those living where such restaurants are scarce, a new study says.
Fast food consumption has previously been linked to higher rates of heart disease and organ damage. In this latest study tying fast food restaurants to cardiovascular ills, researchers studying neighborhoods in one Texas county found that people living in regions with 33 fast food restaurants or more had 13 percent greater odds of stroke than those living in neighborhoods with the fewest fast-food joints.
The study also showed that each additional fast food restaurant in the neighborhood increased the chance of stroke by 1 percent. The results of the research were presented at the International Stroke Conference in San Diego on Thursday.
Wow, a 13 percent rise in strokes for those living near a McDondald's and an increase of 1 percent with each additional greasy spoon in the neighborhood? Stop the presses. Call out the National Guard. We've got to do something here!
But wait. What did that say again? Did that say "...studying neighborhoods in one Texas county..."? One Texas county? That's all they surveyed? ONE COUNTY? One state?
I'm not going to bother with any of the other claims in this thing. But I will highlight some of the disclaimers and weasel words that basically says the headline and first few paragraphs aren't really science all of which appears in the very same piece.
- ...appear to have a higher risk...
- ...in one Texas county...
- This study suggests...
- But he cautioned that the findings are purely associative and do not necessarily point to a direct link between the restaurants' offerings and potentially deadly stroke.
- "I can't tell you that anybody who had a stroke in this study has ever had a burger in their lives," Morgenstern said.
- ...results of the research did not lend themselves easily to an interpretation that fast food was the true stroke culprit.
- While the exact reasons for the association may be difficult to pinpoint in this study...
- Researchers have speculated...
And these are just a few of the lines that refutes the scary headline and first few paragraphs showing that the study might be all hooie and hokum because it turns out the study ABC uses doesn't actually prove the claims made. Seriously, there are several more paragraphs down in the piece that proceed to debunk or prove as less than solid the bold claims made at the top. Never have I seen a piece torn down by itself so blatantly.
This is an amazing example of bait and switch.
Now, I think I can help ABC out with their "scientific" health reports in the future, though. Try this headline ABC: This just in, living results in a 100% death rate.
There ya go ABC. Glad to help.
(Image credit: scruss.com)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Must be from inhaling those
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 07:01 ET by motherbeltMust be from inhaling those fumes....you know, like "second-hand smoke."
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Hey, super-size those
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:27 ET by rimskyHey, super-size those Mickey-D fumes for me, will ya?
I went to the dentist for
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:38 ET by dvdaughtryI went to the dentist for my biannual cleaning. While in the chair the dental hygenist asked me "have you been smoking?"
She could see the nicotine stains on the back of my teeth and then proceded to tell me about 3rd hand smoke (that is the smoke that is trapped in clothes, car interiors, ect) and how that is as deadly as 2nd or 1st hand.
I simply smiled and nodded, but wanted to tell her to just clean my teeth and STHU.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
She was worried about
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:46 ET by motherbeltShe was worried about getting cancer from cleaning the stains off your teeth????
Good grief! If all this stuff were true, half the US would have cancer by now....and France wouldn't even exist!!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
I don't think it was that
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:56 ET by dvdaughtryI don't think it was that she was worried about her catching it. She was just trying to get me to stop smoking. Also worried about my kid (forthcoming) breathing in my car, or my clothes, etc.
It was the first I have heard about 3rd hand smoke.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Do ya
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 09:04 ET by Warner Todd HustonDo ya know how she found out about third hand smoke? The Tooth Fairy told her.
Megyn Kelly had a thing
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:26 ET by red_dragon311Megyn Kelly had a thing on her show about 3rd hand smoke, and she laughed it off and said " so what's next 4th hand smoke"
i was iffy about 2nd hand smoke , but none the less i stepped outside to smoke if i feel the want. but now with 3rd hand smoke my kids are screwed either way so now my 5 and 10 year old light up with me outside, and funny thing they don't seem to like the minty menthol as much as i do which shocked me...my 5 year old likes Camel non filtereted
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
ABC Comedy Network
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:45 ET by allanfPerhaps ABC is misrepresenting the purpose of the study. If the goal of the study was to establish a link between stroke and the proximity to fast food restaurants, the study's sampling techniques would seem biased at first blush. Normally to support such a hypothesis, one would want to have some causal agent in mind.
Hey, I can believe it, just
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 07:29 ET by nadadhimmiHey, I can believe it, just being NEAR liberals makes ME puke!.
OH NO
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:24 ET by ricklailThey just opened a new Bojangles within 1000 feet of a subsidized apartment complex in our little town. The residents there were already obese. Now this is going to kill them for them sure.
Come to think of it this whole town is going to be wiped out. Within one mile of what might be called the center of town there is Subway, Andy's, Chinese buffet, Pizza Inn, and one greasy spoon. We don't have a chance.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. RWR
Research?
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 07:52 ET by danboTo drive the point my old research professor taught me how to lie through research. Try this it'll worK?
Hypothesis. Membership in the democRATic party drives people to drink.
Research design. Random sample not just 1 as was pointed out, county but 50 or even 100 communities around the country.
Go to the office of voter registration. Get the number of democRATS.
Pick up the phone book. Count the number of bars. Crunch the numbers. You will find a significant coorelation.
But other than as a good joke. The research is BS.
Remember there are 4 possible causes for a coorelation. Something warmers and hysterics are unaware of.
A causes B. (Which they're selling.) But there's also B causes A. An there's also that both A and B are caused by a not tested variable or group of variables we will call C. And lastly number 4, the coorelation is a statistical fluke with no real relationship. As even Wiki acknowledges. Coorelations do not imply causality.
In both my example of drinking and democRATS and this study the likely answer is C. Population density. With population density comes a lot of things besides fast food joint. Or D a statistical fluke. (Remember this is only one county.)
Further if you look at a rather arbitrary number. 33 fast food places. Not 25, not 30 not 40 or 50. I assume if your community has only 32 fast food joints you're doing fine. It looks like a researcher kept testing till he found something that worked and proved what he wanted it to.
And all with a wonderfull n of 1. As has been pointed out.
Gotta run. Have fun.
Warner. Thanks for the laugh.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Good stuff, Danbo
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 09:28 ET by trak65I guess I will cancel my plan to look for a house close to a health-food store!
Get this ABC
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 07:57 ET by jdlybrandnewsisblues
I'll eat what I want, when I want.
I'll go where I want to go, when I want to go.
I don't give a rat's rear end what you or anyone else thinks.
It's my life and it damn sure wasn't given to me by the likes of you.
Somebody research how ABC News increases the level of rage to the point of getting an aneurism. I can't laugh at these people anymore. They're not funny; they're pathetic!
Fast food & health....
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:24 ET by MortimerI have noticed a change in myself, due to fast food vendors in my area. My experience has been an improvement in in my physical wellbeing.
The effects of picking up all of the discarded material I clear around my residence daily has improved my range of motion, reduced my belly fat, and extended my endurance.
To think, for last few years, I was thinking it was a problem...
A man should be upright, not be kept upright - Marcus Aurelius
Just an interesting
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 09:30 ET by eaglewingz08Just an interesting question. The study says living near these restaurants ups your risks, but arguably, one is working eight hours a day in a commercial center, and commuting another hour or so a day, so there are only about three hours per five day workweek where one is really 'living' in the neighborhood with a fast food restaurant. The even adding twelve hours X 2 for the weekend, we have thirty nine hours of 'living' next to fast food restaurants versus forty five working away from fast food restaurants. Since the study cannot possibly compare the residents of these areas with their working environments with hundreds of thousand of persons from all areas of metropolitan areas, it is another sham/fraud hoax 'study'. Libs who claim to be pro science appear to be the biggest swallowers of these ridiculous papers.
My bbq now causes strokes
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 09:28 ET by rightwingchefGuess I am going to have to stop the cookouts, I am sure there has to be something wrong with cooking burgers outside now. So now the government wants to control my bbq, my toilet, my money, my right to vote, my voice, and what I eat. We use to call this kind of living the U.S.S.R.
Great logic. I suppose one
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 09:42 ET by KevroyGreat logic. I suppose one could apply that same logic to this: Based on the ridiculous crime rate in DC, its safe to assume that the more politicians there are in a given area, the higher the rate of murder, rape, robbery, and high school dropouts.