It’s bad enough that Sacramento politicians were either blowing smoke — and it had to be some serious weed — or lying through their teeth about high speed rail.

Now their supporters — primarily the US High Speed Rail Association that brings together big corporations and labor unions in a common goal of getting fat and rich off of high speed rail construction — are hawking the $120 billion California boondoggle as a magical elixir that cures middle-aged and older people.

You and I can’t make this stuff up, but high speed rail and their groupies can.

There is a report from China being touted by the rail association that proclaims high speed rail improved the congestive health of 11,000 middle-aged and older Chinese that were part of a study from 2011 to 2018.

How? Because it reduced air pollution, increased their financial well-being, and reduced their isolation.

Where does one start?

How about how did it take eight years for the results of what high speed pushers are breathlessly calling a “landmark study” to become part of the United States high speed rail propaganda machine?

After all, what Californian could possibly object to pouring millions of dollars a week down the proverbial rat hole so they can ride from Merced to Fresno maybe by 2032 if they’ll stay sharp as a tack as they age?

The 11,000 Chinese that were 45 and older that lived in cities along rail lines reportedly found that access to high speed rail reduces depression.

The study also states high speed rail “may” reduce social isolation by making it easier to visit family and friends.

It also shines the light on the discovery of three specific pathways that high speed rail leads to better brain health.

*Better air quality achieved by taking cars off the road prevents inflammation in the brain and nervous system, which supports better cognitive health.

*Increases individual earnings by improved mobility and job creation provides older adults with financial resources for healthier living, including access to health care.

*Expanded travel options reduce social isolation and depressive symptoms and keep the mind active.

Keeping in mind high speed rail was sold to San Joaquin Valley residents as a way to uplift the region that has often been referred to as the “New Appalachia”, why was the focus never shined on brain health tied into car pollution?

Residents in the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley have been extensively tracked for health issues for decades. That’s because the valley comes up regularly as the worst or second worst air basin in the country for pollution.

Everything from asthma to cancer has been examined under a microscope.

There has been barely a peep, if that, about California High Speed Rail being just what the doctored ordered.

It was sold first as a way to reduce travel time between San Francisco and Los Angeles by selling tickets at $100 plus a pop to get people from one specific physical rail station to another.

That’s opposed to cars that not only get you to the station, but can take you places that don’t require tracks to be in place.

Now it’s being sold as a way to reduce climate change by reducing greenhouse gas.

It’s never been framed as a way to improve the brain health of poor people in the San Joaquin Valley.

Could it be because such an outcome is negligible at best.

The claim that high speed rail increases access to health care is almost as good as the original promise high speed rail would be up and running between Los Angeles and San Francisco by 2020 — that was six years ago — at a cost of $32 billion.

It is true heath care in the San Joaquin Valley suffers from a dearth of doctors, nurses, and medical specialists.

And given that 2.18 million people — or 50 percent of the San Joaquin Valley population is on Medi-Cal — wouldn't it make more sense to increase healthcare where people live instead of assuming they can afford a $100 one-way ticket to access it in major urban areas along the coast?

As for expanded travel options, high speed rail is no different than heavy rail except that traditional rail will take you more places than high speed ever will.

Then there’s my favorite line justifying high speed rail: High speed rail will increase “individual earning resulting from improved mobility and job creation.”

Are farmworkers in Firebaugh suddenly going to be in demand for six-figure Silicon Valley jobs because they can drive 22 miles and catch a high speed train that will get them to San Jose in 90 or so minutes?

Or are high tech workers that can’t afford housing near Facebook in Menlo Park or Yahoo in San Francisco going to be spending $100 on daily round trip tickets so they can live in Merced?

Better yet, how many years after trains actually start running will they be frequent enough for high speed rail to function as a commuter line?

Political shysters have sold high speed raid as a panacea for practically everything that ills California, so why not insist it will improve the mental health of older people?

Perhaps it can cure adolescent acne as well and end gang turf wars in Fresno and Bakersfield.

At the end of the day, if you’re going to spend something north of $120 billion on transportation infrastructure it better be able to do a bang up job transporting people.

And it needs to be completed before half of California is talking into a Star Trek-style transporter device saying, “Scotty, beam me to LA.”

Buckling  to pressure to make ridership projections more realistic has led more than a few economists to conclude high speed rail will never be even close to any affordable ballpark when it comes to paying for its ongoing operations once it gets up and rolling and pumping up PG&E stock.

As such, it is becoming apparent that research needs to be done on the cognitive skills of aging high speed rail bureaucrats and their political guardian angels.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com