Turkish family that walks on all fours affected by an inherited brain malfunction affecting balance

NEWS AND OPINION: The purpose of this article is to correct what I see as a very misleading headline on the Internet today on the Indy 100 website. The headline is: "Family that walk on all fours have 'undone the last three million years of evolution'". The article does discuss a medical issue but the headline is clickbait.

It's misleading as I said. I explain why below:

The family in Türkiye (Turkey) that walks on all fours suffers from a health issue known as non-progressive congenital cerebellar ataxia. This condition affects the cerebellum, the part of the brain responsible for balance and coordination. Due to this genetic mutation, the affected individuals have difficulty maintaining the balance required for bipedal walking, leading them to develop a quadrupedal gait.

Are they the only Turkish family affected? There have been reports primarily focused on a specific family in Turkey known for walking on all fours, but it's not common for multiple families to exhibit this behaviour. The most studied case involved a small group from a rural area who displayed this unique locomotion due to a neurological condition affecting balance and coordination. This phenomenon is quite rare, and while there may be isolated instances, the majority of individuals do not walk this way. 

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

American politics has descended into funny cat memes

We can thank the great man himself, Donald Trump, for the dumbing down of American politics into cat memes (see below for definition). Political discourse is now a social media fun activity. Where's the serious debate about serious stuff that affects us all? I say 'us all' because the decisions of the president of the United States affects the world.

I am referring to the latest debacle over the much-reported Haitian migrant cat eating rumours. And they are all rumours. Check out the post below for more on that:

Story about Haitians eating cats was third or fourth hand and unsubstantiated

Trump made a meal out of the rumour and stated it as fact in that criticial debate with Kamala Harris. He got egg on his face and he can't get it off thanks to the avalanche of memes 😱😃!

Here is a comment by a Guardian journalist with whom I agree:

"The debate over Springfield also illustrates the continuing “memeification” of politics – the turning of politics more into a collection of signals and symbols than discussions of content or policy. Trump has always insisted on dragging politics into the gutter. He is only able to do so, though, because the desire to feed the outrage machine rather than engage in nuanced discussion has become such an integral feature of politics."

And here are just two examples of what has happened in terms of meme imagery:

And another!

Both were created by AI, probably DALL E3. Bing Copilot uses DALLE.

What is a meme? Answer: 

A meme is a piece of content, typically in the form of an image, video, or text, that spreads rapidly across the internet, often with humorous or satirical intent. Memes are usually simple, easily recognizable, and can evolve over time as they are adapted by different people to reflect various situations, ideas, or emotions.

They often rely on shared cultural references, making them relatable to specific groups. For instance, a meme might use a popular image or phrase to comment on everyday experiences or current events in a light-hearted way.

In essence, memes are a form of digital cultural shorthand, using humor to connect people through shared understanding or collective experiences.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Story about Haitians eating cats was third or fourth hand and unsubstantiated

Note: see update at end of article. The Daily Mail tells us that Erika Lee is the person who posted information/rumours about Haitian migrants in Springfield Ohio killing and eating cats. But she got the information according to this paper through a neighbour who told her daughter about the rumour. The neighbour's name is Kimberly Newton. Kimberly Newton heard the rumour through a friend. And her friend heard the rumour from the alleged cat owner!

So I make that three stages through which the story passed i.e. through three different people, may be four if you count her daughter.

It's the kind of rumour that carries zero weight in terms of evidence in a court. It's third or fourth hand, a rumour or anecdote, there's no first hand evidence here. It's just highly speculative and Erika Lee regrets what happened.

She has posted to Facebook about this and about how the evidence is so weak that it has to be ignored.

Lee's initial Facebook post sparked panic across social media after screenshots were circulated around X in which she warned Haitian migrants were hanging cats from a branch like you do a deer for butchering.

And she went on to talk about dogs suffering the same fate and ducks and geese. And she said that people should keep a close eye on their animals.

As the entire world now knows, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance picked up on this and made complete fools of themselves with Trump raising it during that critical debate with Kamala Harris. Since then both Trump and Vance have tried to row back from that egg-on-the-face moment.

But Vance has dug a bigger hole for himself by saying that all along he spewed out the story to make a point about illegal immigrants and the reason for their existence in America namely Kamala Harris's policies. But that ridiculous claim has also backfired because it looks transparently fictitious. He's making it up as he goes along.

But this post is about one thing: the fourth hand rumour mill which ended up a hard fact in Trump's mind much to his ultimate chagrin.

'It just exploded into something I didn't mean to happen,' Erika Lee told NBC News.

Update 18-9-2024:  Huff Post reports the following:

An Ohio woman whose police report was used to power racist rumors about Haitian immigrants stealing and eating neighborhood cats has admitted her pet was found in her home, just days after she reported her Haitian neighbors to local police.

It appears that the cat owner is Anna Kilgore who filed the report but who she "told the paper that her pet, Miss Sassy, was found in her basement days after she contacted the police."

There you go. Another nail in the coffin of this silly story and another dollop of egg on Donald Trump's face. 😎

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Tourists regularly throw their smartphones into the Trevi Fountain

Image: Wikipedia

I'll keep this short but I found it quite amusing. Rome's Trevi Fountain is often completely swamped by tourists who want to throw coins into it and make a wish I guess. There are so many people there on occasions that it's impossible for those standing around it behind the crowds to safely throw a coin into the fountain because it might strike the back of the head of somebody in front of them!

But remarkably The Times reports that local officials in Rome, about once a day, visit the local bakery to borrow a pincher arm meant for reaching high shelves and they use it to fish phones out of the fountain when tourists try to take a photo of themselves throwing a coin over their shoulder but get their arms mixed up.

Here is the catch: A proper Trevi coin toss is done using your right hand to throw the coin over your left shoulder. That's were the confusion comes from.

You get the message don't you? They want to throw the coin with their right arm but I guess in the pandemonium and confusion caused by the required method they throw their phone with their left arm. The phone is in their left hand in order to video their right arm throwing the coin into the fountain. That's it. I think it's very strange but amusing. And clearly quite a lot of very nice smartphones are being destroyed in the Trevi Fountain every day! 

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

"My cat killing claim was all bull" said J.D. Vance

OPINION AND NEWS: In my view, J.D. Vance has dreamt up, over the last few days, a way to row back from the absurd claim he made about Haitian migrants in Springfield Ohio eating pet dogs, cats and ducks. He was heavily criticised. There was an avalanche of Mickey taking and he got burnt as did Trump. So he is backtracking and is doing it by saying that what he said was all lies. Quite a neat idea but more gasoline on the dying embers.

Image: Wikipedia.

J.D. Vance has admitted that he "created" the story about Haitian migrants eating pets. Speaking to CNN yesterday, Vance, 40, said that he created the unsubstantiated claims about Springfield which have been dismissed by the local mayor. He did so he says to "draw attention to the Biden/Harris immigration policies".

He said that he had to do this to draw attention to what he argues is sloppy policies by the Biden and Harris administration on matters concerning immigration. He claimed that he has to "create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do."

He added (emphasised) that "I say that we are creating a story, meaning we are creating the American media focusing on it. I don't create 20,000 illegal migrants coming into Springfield thanks to Kamala Harris's policies. Her policies did that."

Sidebar: I'm not sure that migrants in Springfield are actually illegal. In a previous post it was claimed that they were legal but that needs to be clarified.

And he further added: "But, yes, we created the actual focus that allowed the American media to talk about the story and the suffering caused by Kamala Harris's policies." The third time he said it.

So there you go, he is arguably backtracking and trying to brush over what I argue was a massive faux pas on his behalf and also by Donald Trump. And I've also argued in another post this morning that the recent attempted assassination of Donald Trump while he was playing golf just might (allegation) have been set up by Don Trump himself and his team in order to garner more support in a faltering campaign brought partly about by Trump and Vance's irresponsible statements about these Haitian immigrants.

My guess is that Vance's team dreamt up this latest idea. He probably had a fraught meeting about it and asked for ideas. They came up with this. 

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Was the latest Trump attempted assassination set up by Trump himself?

OPINION: It's all over the news as expected. Trump targeted again in attempted assassination. The presidential candidate declares that he is "safe and well" after a suspected gunmen was arrested near his golf club.

When he plays golf there are Secret Service personnel ahead scanning the environment for potential assassins which in this case worked because they spotted an AK-47 automatic weapon in bushes. A man was spotted as Trump played golf at his West Palm Beach resort in Florida.

Secret Service agents fired at the unnamed man but they are unclear whether he is a suspect. A suspect was stopped in their car about 45 miles from the discovery. 

No shots were fired at Donald Trump but the law enforcement personnel shot at the man as I understand it.

The AK-47 was found in bushes and they found two backpacks, a rifle scope and a Go Pro camera which had been attached to a fence.

The president was between 300-500 yards from the gunmen at the time. That's within the range of being shot when using a scope.

The video below explains fully.

So the big news is that Donald Trump escaped another assassination. The last time there was an attempt on his life he took the opportunity to leverage that event by wearing an oversize plaster on his ear and declaring to the world that he was immortal or something like that. And that they could never kill him and he would go on fighting for America for the rest of his life to which his followers roared in delight.

On this occasion Trump, 78, said in a statement: There were gunshots in my vicinity [presumably the gunshots of the Secret Service personnel not the gunmen!] But before rumours start spiralling out of control I wanted you to hear this first: I AM SAFE AND WELL! Nothing will slow me down. I will NEVER SURRENDER! I will always love you for supporting me."

Inspiring words. No?

The question being asked in news media is whether this event will boost his flagging campaign. The general trend is towards Harris to win the presidential election and I wonder if Donald Trump has been seeking some major event to swing votes towards him at the last minute. And I wonder if he came up with the idea of another attempted assassination. That's an allegation and suggestion no more.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility to suggest this. It's an idea I had this morning. I don't know whether anybody else has had the same idea. It would of course involve the participation of this alleged gunmen. But if that gunmen was paid a few million dollars and if he was fairly sure he could get away, I think there are men who would do that.

So, today's conspiracy theory is that Trump arranged this attempted assassination in order to boost his presidential campaign. It's not just me who is actually suggesting that this event could reignite his campaign. The Times has reported that "His campaign last night wasted little time in sending out an email to supporters, asking for more money, but whether yesterday's instant leads to a change in his electoral chances remains doubtful."

Yes, doubtful but possible.

---------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Trump's POOR DECISION-MAKING evident in his rant about pet-eating migrants during presidential debate

Americans expect their next president to be able to make excellent decisions as and when necessary. It is the hallmark of a good president. It is their raison d'être. An American president must be able to make great decisions. The best possible decisions, balancing up all the various factors and influences and consequences. I would expect that an American president makes hundreds of decisions every day all of which have the potential to improve for worsen the lives of Americans.

Screenshot from the debate. An angry as usual Trump and a smiling Harris.

The recent much-publicised debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris emphasises, as far as I am concerned, the fact that Donald Trump makes poor decisions. He is a poor decision-maker.

During this debate he had all the opportunity to discuss issues that are central to the lives of Americans such as healthcare and the economy. Immigration might also be in that discussion. Uncontrolled immigration is important to many Americans as it is too many other citizens of other countries including the UK.

Both parties to this debate had plenty of time to prepare for it. Donald Trump had the choice whether he should rant and rave about Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield Ohio, or is it Canton Ohio, we don't know exactly? He could have avoided the subject completely. He could have addressed immigration but in a professional and balanced way.

But he went on - in his usual way - about a viral social media story which Springfield officials and police say is untrue. They say that there are no credible reports of pet-eating migrants. However, Ohio's Republican Attorney General has launched an investigation into the claims. Link to a further discussion on this.

And there's a video on social media of a Haitian woman, Allexis Telia Ferrell, being arrested and reportedly charged by the local police.

The police officer - as they approach the woman - receives a witness account from people standing by saying that she ate a cat. Were these witnesses truthful or did they have an agenda to further? And I'm told that she was charged - I guess on the basis of that witness evidence - but we are getting very mixed reports on this topic.

The point I'm making is this: at the moment there is no hard evidence that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating pet dogs and pet cats in Springfield or Canton, Ohio, USA. There appears to be some witness evidence but it's been hyped up on social media. It might be unreliable and biased.

And it appears to be hyped up on social media in order to further Donald Trump's political campaign about uncontrolled immigration into the country. He is very strong on that and it appears to be one of his major platforms for history election.

But you cannot, as a potential president of this great country, rant and rave about something on mainstream television in a very major debate that is not based on hard fact at the time you talk about it. 

In the heated exchange, Harris turned to Trump and declared that as vice president she had spoken to foreign leaders who "say you (Trump) are a disgrace."

He has egg on his face. He looks stupid. I am embarrassed for him. A really good person with a good mind would not do this. It's incredibly careless and stupid. It makes him look stupid. And it makes him look like a poor decision-maker. And unfit to be the next president.

I'm pleased because I am very much a supporter of Kamala Harris and I don't think that Donald Trump was a good president. I've said before that if you combine Putin with Xi Jinping you will get a kind of semi-chaos.

Trump's sidekick also fell into the same trap:

“Months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio,” JD Vance wrote on X/Twitter. “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country.”

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Late Queen Elizabeth II considered Donald Trump "very rude". Embarrassment for Trump.

On many occasions, Donald Trump has said that he admired the late Queen Elizabeth II. He considered her a great lady. I think at one time he said that she was the greatest lady on the planet or something as effusive as that. And Trump likes to have a connection with the UK. He likes Great Britain which is why he operates some golf courses in the country (charging £1000 for a round of golf). I think this goes back to his historical origins.

Trump walks in front of the late Queen. Embarrassing. Media frenzy. Image: Richard Pohle of The Times. Problem with publishing photo here? Please tell me in a comment and I will respond promptly.

But the point of this article is this: in the news today there is a report that the late Queen "found Trump very rude". Donald Trump will be reading this in mainstream press and it will upset him. And I'm pleased. I am anti-Trump. I am pro-Kamala. For the simple reason that the former is insensitive to animal welfare as far as I'm concerned whereas the latter is sensitive towards it. And I, personally, need someone in the White House who is sensitive towards animal welfare. This is my great mission.

We need someone in the White House who sensitive towards equality. Equality between men and women. Trump is a misogynistic alpha male with an  ego as big as the White House itself. I don't think he believes in equality. He doesn't believe in climate change. He doesn't believe in the sentience of animals it seems to me. His sons shoot animals for fun. It's all horrible.

That's why I am pleased The Times has reported that the late Queen found Donald Trump very rude. The information comes from a new biography of Queen Elizabeth which claims that she found Donald Trump to be very rude.

Great Britain's late sovereign hosted the former president twice during her longest of all British reigns. She is said to have "particularly disliked" the way that he looked over her shoulder as if "in search of others more interesting".

It would seem that Donald Trump was bored when he spoke to the late Queen. Perhaps this reflects his very short attention span. Or he was just plain rude towards her. And others?

The biography also suggests that she believed his relationship with his wife Melania must've been "some sort of arrangement". The Queen was a smart woman. She had lots of experience in government and in life generally and she is correct in this instance. It has to be an arrangement between Donald Trump and his wife. Trump praises his wife but it seems to me and perhaps the rest of the world that he doesn't treat her with the greatest of respect.

The claims are made by Craig Brown in a new book, A Voyage Around The Queen, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.

He writes: "Over the course of her reign, Her Majesty entertained many controversial foreign leaders, including Bashar Al Assad (a murdering dictator from Syria) Robert Mugabe (the man who destroyed Zimbabwe through corrupt and rotten government) Idi Amin (we all know about him), Donald Trump, Emperor Hirohito and Vladimir Putin (and we all know about him being the modern Stalin and a mass murderer)." I have added my comments in brackets to the quote. 😎😃

The writer adds that:

 "A few weeks after President Trump's visit, for instance, she confided in one lunch guest that she found him very rude: she particularly disliked the way he couldn't stop looking over her shoulder, as though in search of others more interesting. She also believed President Trump must have some sort of arrangement with his wife Melania, or else why would she have remained married?"

The author adds, "For his part, Donald Trump was confident he had been her favourite guest ever. 'There are those that say they have never seen the Queen have a better time, a more animated time'". He later told Fox News. His ego speaking again.

As mentioned, the claims will probably come as a big blow to Donald Trump both personally and in terms of his campaign to be the next president. He is seeking to win a second term in the White House. He first met the Queen in 2018.

There were protests in London about the meeting. A giant balloon portraying Trump as a baby was hoisted aloft. It was controversial but permission had been given.

The meeting took place over tea at Windsor Castle. No other senior Royals were present. It is said that Trump kept the 92-year-old monarch waiting for 10 minutes in 27°C heat and walked in front of her as they inspected the guard of honour. She was left trailing behind him. Disrespectful?

When the late Queen died on September 8, 2022, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that he and Melania would "always cherish our time together with the Queen, and never forget Her Majesty's generous friendship, great wisdom and wonderful sense of humour."

I'm pleased that Donald Trump is going to be embarrassed by this. His ego needs to be chipped away but that of course won't happen.

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Four eared cats have two ears and four ear flaps

This is a quick note and a cross-post. I am a little irritated by the news media who have recently written about a Tennessee kitten with "four ears". There's lots of excitement within the news media about this. They like anatomical curiosities. It's a bit like the Victorian voyeurism of freaks at freak shows. 

Four eared cats have two ears and four ear flaps. Image: MikeB

But they get it wrong. When a cat has "four ears" they actually have four ear flaps - the bit that we see and which captures sound - but internally they have two middle ears and two inner ears. In other words they have two ears but they have for ear flaps, one extra which is normally much smaller than the original one due to a genetic mutation about which the scientists don't know anything almost because this is quite a rare condition.

That's the picture. I wanted to correct what the newspapers are saying. Because they almost blindly shout from the rooftops that this cat has four ears when he does not. He has two ears because the word "ear" describes the entire anatomy including the ear flap, the middle ear, and the inner ear.

In another act of misrepresentation I would argue, they have called this ginger tabby and white cat with a long face and large ear flaps (possible Oriental Shorter genes somewhere in the) "Audio". That's the opposite to what he should be called because 'audio' means producing sound whereas ear flaps capture sound. Another anomaly!

------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Why are two girls going to prison for putting some soup on a picture frame?

Personally, I thoroughly admire the couple of young ladies, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland who threw tomato soup over Vincent van Gogh's painting "Sunflowers". They are brave. They going to go to prison for putting a bit of tomato soup over the frame to this painting. Yes, the frame might be quite valuable but £10,000? That's what we have heard it's going to cost to repair it. I think that's highly inflated.

We're not criminals by Michael Broad

--------------------

And the reason why this particular painting is so valuable - worth hundreds of millions of pounds probably - is because billionaire investors invest in paintings. The day it was painted it was pretty well valueless. The only reason why iconic paintings have very high value is because they are effective investments and the only people who can invest in them are billionaires. Not great, is it?

They don't have an inherent value other than there are nice pictures to entertain us. This couple of young ladies don't think that they are criminals. I agree with them. What they've done is to highlight climate change which people like to shove under the carpet and forget about. They want to shock people into thinking about climate change and be shocked by it.

Why are we fretting about the frame to a painting? What's the big deal? Even if the painting was damaged which it hasn't been it still wouldn't be a big issue because we are talking about an existential threat to the planet about which the politicians are still arguing 30 years after the COP meetings began. It's all talk and no walk.

It's no wonder you get intelligent ladies like these who want to actually kickstart politicians into doing something. I can add a further quotes from Phoebe Plummer.

"That painting was protected by glass. But the fact is millions of people in the global south aren't protected. As young people our own futures aren't protected. That shocked reaction is because it is something beautiful, and you have that feeling of wanting to protect something beautiful, something valuable, of not wanting to see it be destroyed. Where is that sentiment when it's our planet? When it's our environment? When it's people whose lives are being destroyed?"

They chose this particular painting for the shock value. They needed to get into people's heads; to create some anger and to engage people.

The judge said that they "came within the width of a pane of glass of destroying one of the most valuable artworks in the world". That statement is pointless. It's stating the obvious. We know the painting was protected by glass. These girls knew that. The painting wasn't damaged. I don't see the issue. I just think the whole thing's been overhyped and it's been reactionary by the establishment.

And the establishment is failing people. The establishment is failing young people particularly because they have to live with climate change. Most of the establishment is older people who probably won't suffer from climate change that much. Certainly far less than young people and the children of young people today. It's about the future. It's about protecting the future.

The problem is that the establishment like short-term fixes. They cannot get their heads around long-term policies and long-term problem solving. Perhaps it's because it's not politically expedient. It's not politically effective to think long term. And therefore they brush the problem under the carpet. And there's far too much self interest between countries. The whole thing is bogged down in human deficiencies and stupidity. That's why I support these ladies. They have got people talking and that's their objective. Don't punish them for that. Praise them.

And what about cats? Well, what about us? What about cat caregivers? If climate change is an existential threat to the planet it is an existential threat to nature and the wildlife that lives within nature. It's a threat to all of us including our companion animals. It's the single most important topic to discuss on the planet today but it is not happening enough.

"The world’s climate, particularly in Africa, has changed substantially during the past few decades, contributed by several human activities. Africa is one of the continents that is most vulnerable to climate change globally. Since the beginning of 2022, extreme weather events in Africa have affected about 19 million people and killed at least 4,000 individuals. Cyclones, floods, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and famine were among the severe weather occurrences. Natural disasters and extreme weather events brought on by climate change may compromise access to clean water, sanitation systems, and healthcare facilities, making people more vulnerable to a number of illnesses. Floods and drought can lead to both communicable and non-communicable diseases. The African population is more likely to experience more mental health disorders than before because of natural disasters, which result in the loss of property and sometimes loss of lives more frequently. We, therefore, call for an improved implementation of strategies to prevent the health effects of climate change so that the health of the people in Africa can be maintained." - Health effects of climate change in Africa: A call for an improved implementation of prevention measures.

-------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Animal advocate angry at clickbait articles about dogs killing people

Nathan Winograd is a very high-profile American animal advocate specialising in animal shelters and saving lives. He's written a letter, officially from his No Kill Advocacy Center. In it he criticises an article on USA Today, the title to which is click bait: "Dogs are mauling and killing more people. What to do pits neighbor against neighbor". Note: see the bottom of the page about police officers killing dogs! That's probably the real story.

It's not even written that well to be honest. Anyway that's not relevant.

The gist of Nathan Winograd's letter is that there are no statistics which support the view that dog bites are increasing in the USA and certainly there is no evidence that the rate of dog bites are increasing in the USA.

Clearly, there are more dogs in the USA than there were in the past because there are more American citizens adopting dogs and cats. But the proportion between the number of dogs biting people or killing people compared to the number of citizens in America has probably dropped. This is the rate of dog bites and dog killings.

As an extract from his letter:

Moreover, the salient question is whether dog bite rates have increased. And in cases where numbers are available, the trend appears to be in the opposite direction. For example, the author writes that “Emergency room visits due to dog bites decreased from almost 363,000 in 2012 to 317,000 in 2021,” according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), despite millions more dogs in the U.S.

Nathan Winograd says that "While it appears the number of fatal dog attacks has increased, they remain under 100." I asked Google Gemini (Google's artificial intelligence computer) for information on the number of people killed by dogs annually in the US. This is its answer:

The number of people in the US killed by dogs annually falls within a range of  30 to 50 according to the National Library of Medicine [US dog bite fatalities statistics]. 

There are no figures on cats killing people because its just so rare. And anyway cats can't kill people directly. It has to be indirectly such as through a rabies bite which are infinitesimally rare despite more click bait on this topic. The news media likes to exaggerate in order to attract attention.

Nathan Winograd interestingly makes a comparison between people killed by forklift trucks and those killed by dogs. It's a similar amount. Perhaps more are killed by forklift trucks because Google Gemini tells us that "Estimates suggest that around 75 to 100 workers in the United States are killed by forklift accidents annually with an average closer to 87 deaths per year".

This is more than people killed by dogs which puts things into perspective because 99% of the American population do not interact with forklifts! Most Americans come into contact regularly with dogs.

Winograd finishes with this quote:

While fatal dog attacks are tragic, the CDC notes that they remain “rare,” involving roughly 0.0001% of the dog population. Moreover, “Experts say the number of annual fatalities from a dog bite is small enough that measuring year-to-year trends becomes difficult.”

The point that he makes is that if news media use click bait to attract readers about dogs killing people they inadvertently threaten the lives of dogs. It can colour the opinion of people against dogs. They can make people fearful of dogs. This can lead to people using force against dogs unnecessarily which can lead to the death of some dogs.

On that last topic by the way I've seen too many stories about American policeman shooting dogs for no good reason. Many of them seem to be fearful of dogs and they are just too keen to shoot them. On one occasion, a Labrador raced up to a policeman for a cuddle and the police officer shot the dog. Can you believe that? Complete idiocy.

RELATED: Protest after police agitate two dogs and then shoot them dead.

How many dogs are shot by police officers in the US annually?

Unfortunately, there isn't a definitive answer to the exact number of dogs shot by police officers in the US annually. Here's what we know:

• Estimates suggest it's around 10,000 dogs per year, based on a Department of Justice official's report [trace.tennessee.edu].
• This number might be even higher, with some suggesting it could reach six figures [scholars.unh.edu].

There are a couple of reasons why there's no precise data:

• Lack of mandatory reporting: There's no federal legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to record or report animal deaths during interventions.
• Inconsistent record-keeping: Even if departments track these incidents, there might not be a standardized method, making it difficult to compile national data.

If you're interested in learning more about this issue, you can search for terms like "police shootings of dogs" or "canine fatalities by police."

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Overzealous furore over Princess of Wales's botched photo-edited picture

The picture by the Prince of Wales for Mother's Day which was photo-edited by his wife the Princess of Wales has hit the headlines in the wrong way. Firstly, there was a lot of hypocritical - as far as I am concerned - criticism of the photograph by picture agencies. They pulled the picture once they understood that it had been photo edited.

Within 12 hours of being notified of the botched photo editing (which they should have spotted in the first place) they issued a kill notice advising editors and librarians to delete the image because it had been "manipulated".

Yes, it has been manipulated in a bad and amateurish way by the Princess of Wales who was just experimenting (but shouldn't have been) but the basic substance of the image, the content, has not been changed in any fundamental way at all. It is still a charming photograph of her family. It's a good picture.

Note: I cannot publish the photograph here because it is copyright protected. The copyright is owned by the Princess of Wales and I guess her husband because he took the photograph. I'm afraid you will have to refer to the picture from a different source if you're reading this article.

Catherine, the Princess of Wales. See credit at base of page.

Photo-editing is the norm nowadays

All she was doing was tidying up bits and pieces and trying to to make the picture look 'cleaner' and more organised. This happens all the time. These photo agencies receive pictures from hundreds of thousands of photographers who have assiduously and with great expertise photo edited their images to make them look cleaner and aesthetically beautiful.

It's all part and parcel of modern day photography. You always clean up the images by removing little defects in the background like a bird in the sky or a electrical socket on a wall; that kind of thing. Kate, the Princess of Wales, went too far and she wasn't skilled enough to do it for a picture that was destined to be published worldwide.

Mistake - apology

She should have experimented more at home and become more proficient before she issued a photograph for worldwide publication.

That's a mistake and she apologised today. In a statement she said "Like many other amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother's Day. C".

Pulled

Some big news agencies pulled the photograph. Some claim that it did not meet their photo standards. Fair enough. But the public doesn't mind. It is still a good photograph.

Reissue the original photograph

Why couldn't the news agencies have asked the Princess for the original, unedited version of the photograph and used that instead? If the news agencies had been more assiduous they would have spotted the problem initially, telephoned the Princess's staff and asked for the original instead.

Or perhaps they could have patched up the photo editing themselves. It is entirely possible to re-photo edit a botched photo edited photograph to make it more acceptable. There were ways around this but I would argue that the photo agencies are complicit in some way in this mistake.

Overzealous criticism - crazy response

And in The Times today we have a massive overreaction by overzealous journalists to this image from across the world. With some newspapers saying that they can't trust the Royal family any more which I think is absurd.

For example, American newspapers suggested that the episode may have inflicted lasting reputational damage. Ridiculous. This is simply an example of poorly done photo editing by an amateur photographer. That is all it comes down to. No attempt to manipulate the public or fundamentally change the image.

It appears that many newspapers have reported on this botched photo edited image but always it seems to me in an overly zealous manner. For example, in Italy, the newspaper La Repubblica said: "This is one of the biggest and most embarrassing controversies in the recent history of the Royal family." Ridiculous again.

Six areas of photo-editing

Apparently there are six poorly completed photo edited sections in the photograph which The Times have highlighted. But that newspaper's analysis is that these basic errors "should have been spotted by the Palace". I agree that. The picture should have been more accurately assessed by somebody at the Palace but once again I would lay the blame partly at the photo agencies for not assessing the picture themselves accurately.

They have the staff and the expertise to assess the images that they receive. Why weren't they more careful? A lot of the blame needs to fall upon them in my opinion.

And the Princess should not be so heavily criticised like this. I am not a royalist. I don't actually like the Royal family. But I also don't like unfair behaviour and criticism in this case of an amateur photographer who tried her hand at minor photo editing at the wrong time and in the wrong way. That's all.

Image credit: By Ian Jones - Buckingham Palace reception, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=131607684

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

JK Rowling says that Scarlet Blake the cat-killing trans murderer isn't a woman

Transgender criminal defendants should not be referred to by their chosen gender. According to JK Rowling - a person who believes in biological sex rather than their self-certificated gender or trangener - a man who commits a crime as a transgender woman should be charged, prosecuted and sentenced as a man. I agree with her and support her outspoken and brave views.

JK Rowling pic from her Twitter account. I hope she accepts me publishing it here. If not please tell me in a comment and I will act fast.

She says this because she has criticised the reports about the criminal charging, prosecution and sentencing of Scarlet Blake, a transgender person who was successfully prosecuted for cat killing and torture followed by the murder of a randomly selected man namely Jorge Carreno

JK Rowling believes that to report these crimes as if they were by a woman denigrates women. She says that it is unfair on women that a transgendered man has been charged and prosecuted as a woman. This goes to the heart of what JK Rowling believes namely that you can't alter your biological gender or sex.

It has been very troublesome for her, that belief. She's been very harshly criticised by the LGBT community (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community). This community demanded that JK Rowling's books be outlawed by the community to try and hurt her sales. JK Rowling pressed on unaffected by it.

She has her rights and the right to have her own opinions and the right to express them. And I like that attitude. Personally I think that transgendered people should be able to choose their sex in terms of legal documentation and general day-to-day affairs but I also believe as JK Rowling does that you can't change your fundamental gender at birth.

I am sorry that this believe might upset some people but that's what I believe. The reason why am talking about this is because there is a cat context in this story as you probably know as Scarlet Blake is described as a "cat-killing trans murderer". That is in The Times today. The full headline is "Rowling: cat-killing trans-murderer isn't a woman".

After it emerged that Blake was a transitioned from male to female person Rowling criticised Sky News for referring to her as a woman in its reporting. She shared her views in a clip in a video on Twitter/X in which the author wrote: "I'm sick of this s***. This is not a woman. These are #NotOurCrimes."

This tag is used by "gender-critical feminists". JK Rowling is a gender-critical feminists. These are people who believe what I've stated namely that your biological sex remains throughout your life and they say this in the interest of feminism.

In a separate post, Rowling added:

"Crime statistics are rendered useless if violent and sexual attacks committed by men are recorded as female crimes. Activists are already clamouring for this sadistic killer to be incarcerated in a woman's present. Ideologically driven misinformation is not journalism."

Scarlet Blake, according to my research, was being held in a male prison. That was presumably on remand and I will presume that she will remain in a male prison during her 24 year life sentence without parole. That, if true, should be welcomed by JK Rowling.

1. Crime statistics are rendered useless if violent and sexual attacks committed by men are recorded as female crimes.
2. Activists are already clamouring for this sadistic killer to be incarcerated in a women's prison.
3. Ideologically-driven misinformation is not journalism. pic.twitter.com/9hnBBAY6eH

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) February 26, 2024

Transgender women with male genitalia aren't allowed to be held in mainstream women's prisons according to The Times. Nine in ten transgender women are housed in men's prisons according to the Ministry of Justice.

I'm told to that the journalist Louise Tickle, an award-winning reporter who has written for The Guardian for more than 20 years, said that she was boycotting The Guardian newspaper for not telling its readers that Blake was transgender.

My personal experience is that early on in this story, newspapers were not mentioning that Blake was transgender and I guess it was because they were trying to be politically correct. 

I find that very strange because it's important that the reports should mention that Blake is transgender. It was part of the story and in fact it was part of the trial because the jurors had to consider whether Blake was big enough and therefore physically able to kill the man she randomly selected, Carreno. Being a man she was.

--------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

The domestic cat is NOT weird as stupid newspaper journalists claim

Online newspaper journalists have a tendency to claim that the domestic cat is "weird". It just plain stupid. Domestic cats behave as they instinctively have evolved to behave. They behave differently to humans and from a cat's perspective, no doubt humans behave weirdly. 

In fact human behaviour is far more weird than cat behaviour. Look at what humans are doing to the planet at the moment? They are destroying the planet upon which they rely for sustenance and for all their needs. If that isn't weird I don't know what is.

But a website called Your Tango says that cats are weird and they list 15 facts to prove it. So what are these facts? I will touch on a few of them to illustrate my argument.

Perspiration

The first one they list is that "cats sweat through their paws". What is weird about that?! That's perfectly normal. Cats can't sweat through their bodies because they have a coat which is highly functional. And they keep their coat clean all by themselves without having to go into the shower! Far more practical than human behaviour. 

Also when they groom themselves it helps to cool them through the same scientific process which makes sweating effective: the latent heat of evaporation.

Tasting sweetness

And they add that "cats can't taste anything sweet". So what? Cats are obligate carnivores. They've evolved to eat meat. They don't need to be able to taste sweetness. 

Look, if humans couldn't take anything sweet just like cats there would be much less human obesity. Around 40% of Americans are obese. It is a similar percentage UK residents. This obesity is nearly always caused by overeating and eating the wrong foods including foods high in carbohydrate i.e. sugars. Sugars and salt are addictive to humans.

Ironically, the only reason why domestic cats can be obese (and there are too many obese domestic cats thanks to poor human caregiving) is because of the high carbohydrate content in the unnatural dry cat food that they are given so often. Humans have passed on their obesity to the domestic cat.

Grooming exaggeration

Then Your Tango begins to get things wrong. They add that "cats spend up to half their lives grooming themselves". Wrong! Completely wrong! Cats are fastidious groomers but they don't spend half their lives grooming themselves.

Sleeping exaggeration

And they say that cats spend 70% of their lives sleeping. This is incorrect as well because cats, particularly full-time indoor cats, spend a lot of their time perhaps even more than 70% sometimes of their lives not sleeping but snoozing. That's because they've nothing to do thanks to full-time indoor living and a sterile environment. They are not sleeping in the proper sense. We know this because they leap into action at the slightest activity near them.

DNA

The journalist also adds that domestic cats shed 95.6% of their DNA with tigers. That's probably correct and there is also nothing weird about it at all. It's what you would expect because thanks to millions of years of evolution both the tiger and the domestic cat stem from the same ancient cat-like animal. 

Their evolutionary paths split millions of years ago but their ancient origins are the same. Nothing strange about that. It is all nature, evolution and scientific.

I won't bother to go on because I'm wasting my time. I've made my point. Online journalists need to be more careful and stop using click bait words and tactics. I've seen too much of it; too much stupidity and carelessness.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Quirky, honest advert and good photos get this anti-social tortoiseshell cat adopted!

The story of Quinn, I think, helps us understand how best to ensure that a rescue cat at a shelter is adopted. Quinn is a female cat but to me the name is male but that is an important. She is a tortoiseshell-and-white cat with attitude. And her adoption advert from the Humane Society of Washington County in Hagerstown, Maryland, USA, has been reported on social media.

Quinn. Photo: Humane Society.

Fox News reports it which is highly unusual. They describe the adoption advert as funny and honest. It's quirky. It's different. And I suspect that the person who wrote the advert, a staffer at the Humane Society, had become exasperated because Quinn was the longest-term resident at a shelter run I believe in partnership with the Humane Society.

The advert went viral on Facebook and was picked up by news media. Here's a taster of what they wrote to attract attention:

"Do you want a cat who doesn't want you? Do you crave the feeling of being judged in your own home? Do you need someone who will slap you back into reality without notice? If you answered yes to any of these questions, we have the cat for you. Meet Quinn."

They made it clear that Quinn was not a cat for everyone but somebody might like her icy stare and sudden snacks! And they said that she has "an uncanny ability to make people feel unwelcome in her presence - which is perfect for those who are 'tired of visitors'." 

And further they said that Quinn is essentially a...

 "lively houseplant, because all she really needs a human for is food, water and changing her litter. If you adopt Quinn, you will not be her owner, because Quinn cannot be owned. She will own you, your house, your belongings and everything you hold dear." 

You get the drift. Added to these derogatory words about Quinn which were tongue in cheek, there are some really nice photographs. I think all shelter should produce what I call readable photographs meaning photographs in which you can see the cat clearly. They don't have to be beautiful, pretty pictures but should be clear and clean.

The stark change in advertising M.O. came about because originally their advert was very standard and conservative but nobody get the bait. They weren't interested.

The Humane Society shelter (the Humane Society works in partnership with shelters as I understand it and do not run their own shelters) decided that honesty was the best policy and it certainly is as shown by this new story.

And if you read between the lines you know that you're going to adopt a cat which is a typical domestic cat in many ways. This is a tortoiseshell-and-white. They are known to have a bit of attitude but beneath that personality there is a loving cat waiting to get out.

And on November 24, the Humane Society tells us that Quinn has been adopted.

The lesson from this story is to be honest, clear and forthright in telling the world about a rescue cat to which you add nice, clear and crisp photographs and then you let the cat do the talking because somebody will come along who appreciates the honest direct approach.

Here is a Facebook post from the Humane Society.

-----

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

American news media inaccurately report on animal shelter intake rates

Nathan Winograd, a major animal advocate in the United States of America, tells me in his newsletter that "We are seeing something we've never seen before".

Image: Nathan Winograd's newsletter.

He has accused the online news media of America of "spreading alarm" about the very high animal intakes into rescue centres and shelters in America. He blames them for inaccurate reporting. He should know best and he says that the facts on the ground do not mirror the news media stories about high intake rates.

He claims that "while intakes are higher than at the height of the pandemic when many of these facilities were closed, they remain below pre-pandemic levels."

He claims that there has been an "epic failure of journalism to accurately report on this topic".

And this is the problem as he sees it: these stories have allowed shelters to avoid their responsibilities. It's allowed them to continue with, in his words, "shoddy practices by pointing the finger of blame outward".

In other words, the shelters can blame a mythical super-high intake of animals to cover up their inadequacies.

But the truth, he says, about shelter overcrowding and killing shelter animals unnecessarily lies in the fact that the shelters are "making pandemic-related closures permanent". And there are no "offsite adoptions [and] appointment-only adoptions."

In addition, he blames the shelters for a "lack of public access hours (evenings and weekends, and [a] failure to implement robust volunteer, foster, and rescue partnerships."

As I say, Nathan Winograd, is America's best expert on animal shelters in America and he is the number one exponent of the no-kill shelter policy.

-------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Flat-faced Persians bought for social media 'likes' are being abandoned

The title comes from The Telegraph which I can't read because you have to subscribe nowadays to this online newspaper. This, by the way, is a growing trend. The online newspapers simply aren't making enough money through advertising but I don't think people will subscribe to them in sufficient numbers.

Anyway, I digress because I know what The Telegraph is talking about even though I cannot read their article. It's a well-known phenomenon actually.

RSPCA campaign against the flat-faced Persian in which they tell the truth about the breed. Image: RSPCA.

The RSPCA can provide some information. They say that there has been a rise in Persian cats being abandoned to them between 2018 and 2022. 

On Facebook, the RSPCA state that: "Worryingly, there's been a 92% increase in Persian cats coming into our care in the last four years as the popularity of this flat-faced breed continues to rise. These cats are often seen as being cute because of their features, but in reality, they can suffer from: breathing difficulties, eye problems, difficulty sleeping."

They actually suffer from more problems than that such as PKD - polycystic kidney disease (35% of the Persian cats apparently suffer from this disease). And they have tear duct overflow which means the tear ducts are distorted and so tears do not drain away from the eyes but the liquid spills over down the front of the face where they face become stained.

It's a well-known problem that you have to clean the face of a Persian cat regularly. A number of celebrities in the UK have adopted Persian cats. Also, in India you will find that high-profile female celebrities like the Persian cat. In fact, in India, the Persian cat is perhaps the most popular cat breed together with the Siamese. These are very long-standing cat breeds and India has a young, emerging cat fancy and therefore they prefer the old breeds.

Punch-face Persian.

Indians living in India call the flat-based Persian a "punch-face Persian" in recognition of the fact that it looks as though somebody has punched in the face. It is an objectionable label sadly.

For example, in the UK, Kate Beckinsale, is obsessed with her Persian cats, Clive and Willow. They accompany her on her Instagram pages. Taylor Swift has not adopted a Persian cat.

In September 2012, Kim Kardashian adopted a Persian kitten. Although Taylor Swift has not adopted a Persian cat, preferring to select the Ragdoll and Scottish fold, she has promoted the concept of buying exotic domestic cat breeds which I think has encouraged others to do likewise to help create successful social media accounts such as on TikTok and Instagram.

Taylor Swift has, I believe, the highest number of followers on social media of anybody on the planet.

RELATED: Flat-faced Persian cat can’t eat conventionally because the food goes all over their face.

But when a person adopts a flat faced Persian in order to post pictures of them on social media, they will find out about the responsibility that they've taken on in looking after Persian cat which is at a slightly added level to normal. 

They will also find out that it is very hard to acquire lots of followers on social media and have a successful social media webpage. Nearly all of them fail.

So, when they have failed in their attempt to become social media stars, the Persian that they acquired no longer serves their purpose so they abandon the cat to the RSPCA. That, I believe, is the story. It is a great shame because the Persian cat is being used as a means to try and generate social media fame which a lot of people crave. It doesn't work actually unless you are Taylor Swift but then people follow her because of her love because of cats.

Separately, you will find that other well-known cat breeds are also used to try and generate fame for their owner, vicariously. The Maine Coon is a typical example. This is currently a very popular cat breed and because of their size they look very impressive in photographs. 

You will see many TikTok and Instagram accounts in which the account holder shows off her Maine Coon cat and how they develop from kittens to giants. The same objective is being followed for the owner of these cats: to achieve social media fame through their cat.

-----------

Please forgive any typos. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I can't spend long on them as they are not seen by a lot of people nowadays! Sad but true.

Did the cost-of-living crisis and the pandemic cause "an animal welfare crisis"?

NEWS AND VIEWS - UK: Online news media, today, is blaming the cost-of-living crisis in the UK combined with the Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath for "creating an animal welfare crisis with vital services [which] are stretched to the limit".

Picture by the RSPCA.

Before I go into the details of two reports from different sources about this animal welfare crisis in different parts of the UK, I would like to add immediately that it is a very poor excuse that animal welfare becomes a crisis because people have less money in their pocket or it is after the pandemic.

The RSPCA reports that there were 1072 cat cruelty reports in 2022 in Wales, UK and out of these complaints, 600 were calls concerning neglect and 89 regarded intentional harm. The RSPCA received three reports every minute.

This, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the pandemic or money. When you adopt a cat - and it does not matter whether you adopt that cat during the pandemic, before it or after it - you do so with a commitment to care for that cat for the cat's lifetime. 

And if an emergency happens or a catastrophe occurs to you which affects your finances and you feel that you must release your cat to somebody else, you commit to rehoming the cat yourself with care and concern or you take your cat to a shelter and asked them to do it. 

The RSPCA run shelters. Also, in the UK Cats Protection run shelters via foster homes.

Running out of money because of the cost-of-living crisis or because it is post-Covid is not a reason for harming your cat or abandoning your cat or being neglectful of your cat. This is very poor reporting and thinking. It is not critical enough.

Everybody goes through difficult times but you can surmount them and you don't have to give up your cat in the process. I would bet my bottom dollar that all the cat cruelty reports reported to the RSPCA had no connection whatsoever, if you analysed it properly, to the cost-of-living crisis or the pandemic.

It'll be about carelessness, wanton neglect, callousness, hating cats, immoral behaviour; all these things about more likely to be behind cat cruelty.

Separately, the BBC reports also about the RSPCA cat cruelty reports regarding 2022. The BBC reports on the county of Lincolnshire in the UK. They say that hundreds of cats were intentionally harmed, neglected or abandoned in 2022.

Apparently, it is the RSPCA who think that the Covid pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis is to blame. Are they guessing? Are they just going along with the general flow because I see a lot of news media reports on the cost-of-living crisis and how it impacts people's finances. You don't make a presumption because people are short of money that they have to be cruel to their cat. That is not an equation which adds up automatically.

Nationally, the BBC reports, that almost 18,000 cat cruelty complaints were reported to the RSPCA in 2022 and they include abandonments, neglect and intentional harm. There were 1726 intentional harm incidents which included killings, beatings, poisonings and "improper killings". This represents a 25% increase from the year before.

The RSPCA pick up the pieces. They see an awful lot of cat cruelty but this cat cruelty is perpetrated by immoral, miscreants; people who are bad and who have no sensitivity towards animal sentience. Let's not pass the buck onto something which doesn't really exist.

News media scaremongering about the possible spread of "coronavirus" from Cyprus to the UK

OPNION: I am annoyed at the news media again because they are creating click bait articles about the outbreak of FIP (feline infectious peritonitis) in Cyprus. FIP is a coronavirus but the way the articles are written they give the impression that FIP is a form of Covid-19 about which people are frightened. It is not.

The spotted cats of Cyprus. Not all cats on Cyprus are spotted (spotted tabby). Image: PoC.

Spotted Street Cats of Cyprus.

The news media is deliberately creating a frightening situation or scenario to get readers. The situation on Cyprus is not a problem for the UK because although FIP is contagious it requires direct contact between cat and cat and a transmission of, for example, saliva between those two cats for the infection to be transmitted between them. It can't be transmitted like Covid-19 in the air like a typical virus.

It's impossible to envisage a cat in Cyprus suffering from FIP transmitting the disease to a cat in the UK because there are thousands of miles apart! A cat on Cyprus might travel to the UK with their owner on an aeroplane and they might transmit the disease to one cat in the UK but that'll be about it. 

And, in any event, less than 1% of cats who catch FIP develop the fatal version and die. Most often the disease is asymptomatic or it creates mild symptoms. Cats with mild symptoms of FIP which they cure themselves end up being carriers. This is a concern obviously but we shouldn't be frightened about this outbreak in Cyprus.

What chance is there of the deadly cat coronavirus in Cyprus spreading to the UK?

And, in addition, the news media has grossly exaggerated as have the Cypriot authorities the number of cats dying of FIP in Cyprus. They have quoted the figure of 300,000 stray and domestic cats dying of the disease on that island. 

I decided that it was an impossible figure because if it's true there would have to be 30 million stray and domestic cats on the island and we know that there are about 1 million cats on Cyprus. 

The island is famous for two things: there are more cats in Cyprus than there are humans and, secondly, the earliest recorded domestic cat lived on Cyprus around 9500 years ago as judged by the unearthing of the skeleton of a tame wildcat next to their owner.

Suicidal social media influencer quits after death threats because she killed two cats as a child

You may remember this story. It is rather disturbing in several ways. The woman concerned is Emma Claiir. Her name is spelled correctly. The headline is: "Social media influencer quits and says that she was left suicidal after receiving death threats because of her admission that she killed two cats as a child."

She is an Australian. In April, she admitted to her 105,000 followers that she killed two cats when she was a child. Her admission occurred on an episode of her pod cast, Simply Chaotic. 

Emma Claiir. Image: Instagram.

It was a bizarre confession. Her co-host, Christy Jean, on the pod cast was stunned by it. She said that she didn't mean to kill the cats but that she was a child.

She said: "I was swinging my cat around. Like, I was thinking it was a stuffed toy. And I accidental let go of it."

She believes that the cat died from fright rather than because of injuries suffered as it was hurled across the room. During her confession, she giggled and explained that "this happened years and years and years [ago]". And she went on to explain that she also killed her best friend's cat by accident.

Her honest confession shattered her life. She received widespread criticism and she was dropped by makeup company MCoBeauty not long afterwards. Three more brands then cut ties with her. One of them is a vegan make up company that promotes how it does not test its products on animals. You can understand why they cut ties.

Social media influencers depend upon these sorts of arrangements to generate an income stream. So, she lost a lot of income. We don't know the precise amounts but it may be that she decided that it was no longer worth it being a social media influencer.

But it goes deeper and wider than that. She says that the story got taken out of proportion and that people started to witch-hunt her. She felt that they wanted to destroy her.

She said:

"I lost my job; my mental health was impacted massively and people were just having a laugh about it. I realised it was taking me away from my son and making me not present with him so I took a small break."

She added:

"Since my return after that people decided it was okay to spread cheating rumours, make up lies and try to continue to ruin the life of a new mother who was already pretty open about her mental health struggles in life. Not only did I have haters trying to ruin my life and spread hate and rumours but I also had close friends doing the same. Friends who I thought were there for me, friends who I trusted and friends who I thought would never stab me in the back."

She reached breaking point. She felt unsafe in her own bubble. She started to feel unsafe in her home. Her anxiety increased when she went out into public places. She felt violated. There were death threats. The lies and rumours mounted and became louder and oppressive.

She considered ending her life. Eventually her mental health "finally crumbled. I entered a very dark space that was extremely scary and unfamiliar".

She told herself that the only way to make the nightmare go away was to take her own life. She said:

"The only way to make the haters happy was if I disappeared for good and officially left this world. Maybe my son and my husband really would be better off without me and I should just let them go, maybe my friends and family will also be better off without me, so I should just let them go. These are thoughts no new mother should be having."

She left a very long post on social media in which she signed off from the role of social media influencer. It concludes like this:

"Now to end. I have and always will be a mental health advocate. It is something that is so close to my heart and something I witness every day in myself and my family. Working online I always wanted to be open about my struggles and help those who needed it, help those who needed to feel less alone or those who needed that little push to get the help they needed. I never would have gotten through what I went through if it wasn't for seeking help from professionals and those around me. Check in with your family, your friends and most importantly yourself. Take a step back and ask yourself if your actions could be damaging and dangerous to someone's mental health. And lastly always remember that the online space can be horrible, fake and harmful whether you have a following or not, so it's okay, strong and powerful to walk away when needed. With love, Emma Claiir."

Comment: I really, really think that she's much better off quitting being a social media influencer. That kind of role is indeed potentially and often actually very toxic. She made a mistake and she's paid the price. But I think there is a silver lining for her; to live a more normal life not a fake life on social media pretending to be somebody she probably isn't.