Monumental waste of time and effort

This could start at any point in the chain.  I'll start with the observation that for a young man, time moves slowly in his impatience to get where he wishes to go but by the end of his time, time itself rushes past way too quickly, particularly as there's not all that much of it left.

That then colours, in my case at least, impatience with 'wastes of time' and when that is combined with the plethora, the sheer mass of data coming through, from good copy to outrageous deception designed to waste our time, also combined with the ravages of age on the brain as it staves off Alzheimer's etc. ... methinks you get the general drift here.

One of the worst features of trollery is bundled in false assumptions and there are two examples below this intro. The intro is to look first at this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Cardinal_Principles_and_Eight_Virtues

... which says:

They are derived from the Legalist text Guanzi, attributed to the Qi philosopher Guan Zhong, although it is unlikely he was the actual author. 

Not unlike gospel sayings here until the 2000s, they underpin the society because most have seen the value in holding these things up as worthy of aspiration in that society.  However, the man who unwittingly gave the name to this blog, Deng Xiaoping, took the Guan Zhong-like legalese and corrupted it thus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Cardinal_Principles

The idea was, of course, that he is equally steeped in the ancient wisdom, therefore he is more readily accepted.  All right, onto the first example:

https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/12/07/2213201/the-nih-director-on-why-americans-arent-getting-healthier-despite-medical-advances

... which came with an intro in the header: "Interesting, applies to most, if not all, countries."  So, trusted sender, NIH an august body [yes I know, I know but I mean for most Americans, bear with me for now] and a real live doctor speaking/writing ... what's not to believe as straight from the horse's mouth?  Also, slashdot has put up some good articles in the past - that's coming from me.

Augurs well, yes?  Have a look at this bit:

In a wide-ranging conversation, Collins answers NPR's questions as to why -- for all the taxpayer dollars going to NIH research -- there haven't been more gains when it comes to Americans' overall health. He also talks about how tribalism in American culture has fueled vaccine hesitancy, and he advises his successor on how to persevere on research of politically charged topics -- like guns and obesity and maternal health -- even if powerful lobbies might want that research not to get done.

Still don't see the issue in there?  If you don't, then I'd take a guess that you do read a fair bit of the MSM because if you've shunned the MSM and get reality from the network of sites of which this is one, then you'd have immediately seen the words "tribalism", "fuelled" and "vaccine hesitancy".  Dead giveaway, no?

And used in the way they are here, then they render the whole piece unreliable and not worth the time.  

Compounding this - how long do you think it's taken me in this debunking so far, from my first quick searches to this point now?  I can tell you 20 minutes of reading and collating.  

That 20 minutes is at the most crucial time of day for me - from around 5 a.m. to about 8 a.m., with three drops from Steve still to post and one from DAD.  And while they're not up onsite, people waking Wed morn and who click in are not seeing those items.  They're seeing this.  Again ... you get the drift here?

Right, now to the second waste of time:

https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-study-finds-viagra-is-linked-to-almost-70-lower-risk-of-alzheimer-s

It could quite well have been sent as a lighthearted filler, meant to be debunked in the mind and imagine online readers having far more available time to read and research than someone running a blog such as this.  

To the latter, this just wasted ten minutes of my time I'll never get back, although it's useful for this post.  

Consider, even before the headline, the word sciencealert [lower case, meaning trusted], then the subheading Health:

Giant Study Finds Viagra Is Linked to Almost 70% Lower Risk of Alzheimer's

You know very well what clickbait impression that's giving and yet:

According to a study led by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic, taking sildenafil is tied to a nearly 70 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's compared to non-users.

That's based on an analysis of health insurance claim data from over 7.2 million people, in which records showed that claimants who took the medication were much less likely to develop Alzheimer's over the next six years of follow up, compared to matched control patients who didn't use sildenafil.

It's important to note that observed associations like this – even on a huge scale – are not the same as proof of a causative effect. For example, it's possible that the people in the cohort who took sildenafil might have something else to thank for their improved chances of not developing Alzheimer's.

It's also bleedin' possible, is it not, that the type of person involved in bedtop olympics is a person of a certain youth and stamina, no, in the first place?  Whatever, however, as it said, there's no way to know all the factors without casting the net more widely.

In short, a waste of time bothering with that article and the bona fides of sciencealert plummets in my book.  Not only that but I've just wasted your time as well in even having run this post.