As a long-time student of science, we’ve always found it fascinating to look at claims from all angles – especially when the science seems to make just no sense, no matter what so-called logic may dictate.

Case in point: low fat milk – great for you, if you want to lose weight, no? Low fat! Dieters want to lose body fat, so it makes sense to add less to our diet, no? Wrong. According to Absolute Health (et al), we may have the ‘science’ all wrong. In fact, in a study published in the European Journal of Nutrition “researchers examined the relationship between dairy fat and obesity and cardiovascular conditions. Results show that the group that consumed full-fat milk were less likely to develop obesity. Additionally, taking full-fat milk didn’t cause type 2 diabetes or heart diseases.” In fact, in many countries around the world, low-fat and skim milk are fed to farm animals to fatten them up.

Speaking of milk, what about rBST (Recombinant somatotropin, aka bovine growth hormone)? “rBST is a genetically engineered hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production,” Breast Cancer Prevention Partners reported, “used in dairy products including ice cream, butter, cheese and yogurt. The United States does not require companies to label the use of rBST in their products, although it was banned in the European Union in 1990. The use of rBST in dairy cows has been shown to increase the concentrations of IGF-1, a protein naturally found in milk. Though research is mixed on the extent to which dairy consumption is linked to increased cancer risk, higher blood levels of IGF-1 have been linked to increased risk for pre-menopausal breast cancer.” According to those milk cartons, the FDA has determined there is no significant difference between milk from rBST treated cows and non-rBST treated cows. So where are the studies? rBST has been part of the milk supply since 1992, and girls are showing signs of, let’s just say, ‘physical maturity’ at younger ages. So is it harmless, why was it banned in the EU, and since milk is such a large part of our lives, where are there studies? It has been attributed to many factors, but growth hormones have been added to the American diet, and isn’t milk primarily consumed by children?  Just saying.

‘Science’ sometimes seems to forget that real life can be a powerful petri dish. For example, the number of homeless have soared in many of the major cities in the US (Hollywood’s Apocalypse NOW: Rich and famous are fleeing in droves as liberal politics and coronavirus turn City of Dreams into cesspit plagued by junkies and violent criminals) – and despite the fact that the homeless are neither wearing masks nor social distancing, we don’t hear about Covid death rates spiking in homeless camps. According to American Institute for Economic Research, “A new study suggests that denser places, assumed by many to be more conducive to the spread of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, are not linked to higher infection rates. The study, led by a researcher at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, also found that dense areas were associated with lower COVID-19 death rates.…” Observation. Critical to genuine science.

Speaking of which, violent criminals are being released from prison to protect them from Covid, and never mind the toll that it has taken on the general population (Violent Crime In NYC Skyrockets – Murders Up 100% Over Last Year, Shootings Up 75%). Consider this: schools have opened in Texas, and they’re practicing social distancing. Why is there not a solution for prisons?  Violent criminals – prior to Covid – were being placed behind bars, surrounded by armed guards and removed as a threat from the general population. Kids pull temper tantrums. Seriously – on balance, which group is easier to control?

We mention all of this, as an investor whom we spoke to recently said that if she saw another deck where Covid was mentioned (unless it was appropriate), she was going to scream. It seems that entrepreneurs might have replaced ‘the Uber of…’ with ‘Covid,’ the hot button du jour. With recommendations from ‘experts’ being so contradictory, if you are focused on a ‘solution,’ observation is a critical component in order to find that outlier that may actually work. Or at least to assuage fears, considering that, according to the CDC, more people died of pneumonia this year than of Covid, and why didn’t the masks protect against that virus? Just asking…

There’s another shift that has been happening and attention must be paid. Investors look for big markets, as we know, and entrepreneurs for population densities. The ride-sharing services, food delivery services, et al who needed to show traction early on, concentrated on the big cities: that’s where the denser audience/largest potential customer base is. Was. Or still is to some extent, except that the demographics have changed: the money has fled. The ‘second cities,’ have become the new destinations of former big-city urban dwellers, and while zip codes might have changed, tastes and habits, not so much.  Pay attention: the landscape and focus have shifted. The idea of ‘flyover states’ may not fly for too much longer. Think big markets in smaller places.

Many reporters and blogger – yours truly being no exception – cited Gabriel García Márquez’s Love in the Time of the Cholera or the title, at least, at the outset of the global lockdowns. Given that the economies of the major urban centers have basically been destroyed in the name of public safety, even while the prevailing powers failed to protect their citizens from criminal elements, we’ve been asked many times by various readers when the cities will go back to normal – or at least to the so-called New Normal – and how long did we feel that people will stay away? Of course there will be those who will return. For business, or personal reasons. But the cities will not be able to right themselves overnight. Many people will not return – most notably the monied class. For a considerable segment, they did not leave the cities: the cities deserted them. Once again: observation: the social contract has been eradicated with impunity; the trust is gone, and we once again, sadly, defer to the Marquez novel, although not the to the title this time but to the final sentence. So to answer the question, how long will those people stay away?

“Forever.”

Onward and forward.