Trivial Web Survey Finds Irrelevent Non-Fact Type Thing

(Source)

Ever wondered if you’re gonna get happier or sadder as you get older?  Wonder not!  Yahoo has your back.

Here’s a wildly simple, profoundly interesting question: At what age are you happiest? According to a recent survey, the answer is 33.

A recent survey you say?  Well, clearly the answer of 33 can’t be subjective or nonsensical if people told interviewers that specific number on average, right?

Friends Reunited, a U.K. website, found that 70 percent of respondents over the age of 40 said they did not find true happiness until they were 33 years old.

So, let me get this straight.  Not only is this information coming from a UK perspective (and thus potentially culturally dependent and irrelevant to the rest of the world), but it’s also based on a website’s aggregated information!  Lets forgive them for using poorly controlled and statistically unrepresentative data collection methods for the time being and focus on the former problem.

Oh, if only journalists were scientifically literate, maybe they would’ve realized the claim only applies to Brits!  Wouldn’t it be nice if this data was qualified in some way so that journalists would avoid making that mistake?  Taking a look at the original press release’s title…

33 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER, AS NEW REPORT REVEALS THIS IS THE AGE BRITS ARE AT THEIR HAPPIEST

Awkwaaard.

Here’s a couple of classic cherry picking non-sequitors to cement the absurdity.

As the site pointed out, Jesus Christ was crucified at age 33. Oh, and “33-year-old celebrities like Jennifer Love Hewitt, Maroon 5 front man Adam Levine and Katie Holmes seem to be enjoying a wealth of success right now.”

So there you have it folks, Jesus was British.

Super Sure Sounds Scientific To Me

9 Spices With Super Healing Powers

I could write an intro but I’m not in the mood for that sort of thing today.  Lets do this Ninja Style.  We’re gonna jump straight to the assassination.

Cinnamon is a nutritional powerhouse, with antioxidant properties that keep cells safe from oxidative stress and dangerous free radicals. Antioxidants help fight such diseases as cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and Parkinson’s.

A wild claim has appeared!  Gee, I wonder what the science says about antioxidants.

There is widespread scientific agreement that eating adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables can help lower the incidence of cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. With respect to antioxidants and other phytochemicals, the key question is whether supplementation has been proven to do more good than harm. So far, the answer is no, which is why the FDA will not permit any of these substances to be labeled or marketed with claims that they can prevent disease.

Allow me to unsheath my kunai here and get right to the point:  isn’t it great that the assholes peddling this crap don’t even need to test the FDA’s resolve thanks to irresponsible media outlets?  Journalists inject these spurious claims straight into the public consciousness much faster than any advertiser could, it’s far more effective than any crap they could scribble on the packaging.

You may say, “But, these spices are fruits and vegetables.”  Yes, that’s true, but when they talk about eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables they don’t mean putting a little bit of cinnamon on your doughnut every morning.  It is uncontroversial that following certain eating habits can generate good health, but trying to piggy-back supplementation on that claim (even through spices) is the nutritional equivalent of invoking homeopathic logic.

The fun doesn’t stop there, but I’ll let someone else bloody their katana on the rest of the poorly supported (“one study in 200x confirmed it, so lets give dietary advice based on it”) garbage contained in that poor excuse for an article.