A rise in premature births among Latina women may be linked to Trump's election


Well-Known Member
Don't try this at home, kids; this is what you call "professional" journalism.

And sheet.

The United States 2016 election, when President Donald Trump was voted into office, may have been tied to a rise in premature births among Latina women across the US, according to a new study.

In the nine months beginning with November 2016, about 3.2% to 3.6% more preterm births to Latina women occurred above the levels of preterm births that would have been expected had the election not occurred, suggests the study, published in the medical journal JAMA Network Open on Friday.

Think about that for a minute: published in the medical journal JAMA Network Open. That means not only were taxpayer funds used to fund this, but it was published. For people to read.

I can't even.


Well-Known Member
I wonder how many crazy studies are going on in all of the colleges and places where these things are receiving taxpayer funds.


American Beauty
PREMO Member
And maybe they induced their labor to make sure their anchor babies were born before being deported.


Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
JAMA should be embarrassed.

If one takes the time to read the article one will find that it is embarrassing partisan in its political bias. This is so anti-Trump as to be mind-boggling. So what are some of the problems one finds?

First, the folks accepting the cash to do the study are from San Francisco. Not in and of itself a problem. But it is an indicator. (I didn't bother to check the "potential conflicts" blurb, but did note the study was funded (at least, partially) by the "Population Health and Health Equity Scholars program." Does that sort of give it away as to a political/ideological leaning? That even if the study didn't go the way it did, the award winners might feel stress in ensuring results were "appreciated" by the funding agency?

Second, the study title speaks to the 2016 election. Fair enough, but the body of the study uses political terms and expresses anti-Trump rhetoric throughout. Okay, a problem, but not necessarily an insurmountable one.

Third, no real discussion of confounds (despite some fancy language to give the impression otherwise).

But, fourth.... Fourth, there is absolutely NO indication that any other possibilities are considered. Is it possible that the increased stress (and attendant premature births if, in fact, the numbers used are statistically significant and I'm not sure they are) is due to other things? Such as a lax immigration enforcement posture potentially changing to an enforcing of existing laws a stressor? That the easy life (relative to what an increased level of enforcement would bring) was now past a stressor? Or even the role of the news and politicians in both creating a false sense of security prior to 2016 and an increased level of fear/stress post-election? Could these things be possible stressors?

I could go on and on. But what's the point?*

Yup, this is spot-on correct:
TDS strikes again.
What's next for American science/medicine? Lysenkoism? If this is any indication (a 1983 article from the New York Times):
...then probably, yes. Unfortunately, probably much worse if we continue down this path.

That CNN ran the story as it did is both expected (this is the current CNN MO/revenue model) and at least indirect proof that the Left-leaning media is not just playing a role in increasing life stressors, but is also a life stressor itself.

*Btw, I like science. So I would have called this out had it been a study where Obama (or some future Democrat) was president. My sense (and grad school experience), however, is that the likelihood of this type of "science" occurs with far more frequency on one side of the political divide than the other (as one side generally sees science as in service to the greater good while the other generally sees science as in service to the greater political good). Would be pleased to entertain efforts to change my mind.

--- End of line (MCP)