Closet Monster.

We have passed the absurdity horizon and are now fast approaching the singularity. The place where everything is going to kill us unless we live naked in the trees and eat bark.

I wonder if it has happened before? Maybe there was an earlier human civilisation that was also infested with the Puritans. Those Puritans would have convinced everyone to kill all those who disagreed with their views and then returned to living naked in trees after totally dismantling their world and scuttling the Libertarian sea-city, Atlantis.

Eventually we returned to civilisation, and now the cycle begins again. It’s a theory some of those with really, really big tinfoil hats have actually put forward and yet… and yet Common Purpose was a tinfoil-hatter until only a couple of years ago. Now they are on YouTube, with the amateurishly exaggerated body-language of that Middleton woman waving all over your screen. Yes, she is trying subliminal control but she’s shit at it. That’s why all her graduates are being found out now and will all be lynched eventually.

A lot of the things David Icke talked about years ago (but not the lizards) have happened. The tracking of everyone through their mobile phones was tinfoil-hattery until it was proved to have been happening for years. All that NSA monitoring was just paranoia until it all came out as true.

We used to have science. We ripped it out of alchemy and turned it into something that made sense. We took the old wives’ remedies and made modern medicine (mouldy bread poultices are still poo-poohed by modern medicine even after the discovery of penicillin – which comes from the same mould, Penicillium notatum). We don’t have either of those things any more.

Instead we have a version of science that is far less credible than alchemy. A version that is paid to prove pre-written conclusions. Even alchemy didn’t stoop that low.

Medicine no longer seeks to cure but to control. Medics now think that if everyone lives as they direct, nobody will get ill and they’ll be well paid for doing nothing useful at all (at the top, they already are). Unfortunately their directions are based on made-up rubbish and guesses, so it won’t work. Really, you’d be better off if a guy in a wooden mask shook a gourd at you these days. He at least has the placebo effect on his side. That requires the patient to believe in the power of the witchdoctor. Nobody believes in doctors any more.

The singularity is closer. Can you see it, Righteous? No, because it has infinite mass but zero dimensions. You will not know you’ve arrived until it crushes you to quarks. Your only clue is the quantum foam of increasingly random nonsense that surrounds you.

So now we have a pronouncement that orange juice is bad for you, after years of being told it’s full of Vitamin C and good for you. How much madder can it get?

How about Greenpeace starting a scare on children’s clothes that contain harmless trace amounts of chemicals? Could such madness really happen? It already has.

…a research report titled ‘A little story about the monsters in your closet’, which was published today.

That is not the title of any research report. If Exeter University really published with that title they should renounce university status and re-register as a publisher of comics. That is the bottom of the barrel as far as science goes. An actual embarrassment to all of science. Even as the title of a fictional tale about closet-monsters it is utter rubbish, as a title for any kind of serious science it is the final nail in the coffin of credibility.

They found nothing. Nothing dangerous at all. Triivial trace quantities of things that might be harmful at far higher levels. Some findings are derisory.

The tests ound phthalates, which are used to soften plastics, in many products.

Let’s have a guess. In products made of flexible plastics, perhaps? In other words, exactly where you would expect to find them.

Fungicide chemicals, known as organotoxins, were found in socks, shoes and sports clothes.
Exposure at high levels can harm the immune and nervous systems.

Those fungicides are there on purpose. They are to stop you getting fungal skin infections while you are all sweaty and nasty. You can take them out and get ringworm and athlete’s foot all the time if you prefer. Sure, high levels can harm you but they didn’t have high levels, did they? They had levels harmful to fungi, not to humans. And they are not known as organotoxins. They are known as fungicides. ‘Organotoxin’ is a ridiculous made-up word that covers anything harmful to anything organic and it includes antibiotics as well as bleach. I wish I believed in a permanently enraged and vengeful God who I could call down on these half-witted idiots. Then again, I wish that every day at work too. If I was in Exeter now I’d be actively trying to summon that god – and I bet some of these idiots’ co-workers already are. Pray for their success. It can’t hurt.

The whole article, the report it came from, and the sham scientists who wrote it are a huge joke. Part of the absurdity that is only to be expected this close to the Stupidity Singularity where the moronic pronouncements reach an infinite incredibility and have zero relation to reality.

I note, in passing, that Greenpeace didn’t test any Russian clothing… funny, that.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Closet Monster.

  1. Wow, Mr Sanity has choo chooed out of the station big time! How are these idiots allowed to get away with this nonsense? Back in the good old 80’s they would have told to F right off.

    It’s only going to get worse too. 😦

    Like

  2. I read a science fiction story once along these lines, a good civilization that descended into madness when the stars can’t out every so often, then the whole cycle started again. It may not be stars but our current ‘scientists’ are not much better, a form of madness seems to have overtaken us. Maybe we don’t have enough to worry about these days.

    Like

    • I just had to go and look at that story.
      Infuckingcredible

      “Head of Conservation and Advocacy Dr Amy Plowman is also an animal nutrition expert: “People usually try to improve their diet by eating more fruit – but fruit cultivated for humans is much higher in sugar and much lower in protein and fibre than most wild fruit because we like our fruit to be so sweet and juicy. Giving this fruit to animals is equivalent to giving them cake and chocolate.”

      “However, animals do still get banana if they are unwell and the keepers need to make sure they take medication. Amy added: “Putting it in a piece of banana works really well, as it’s such a treat now!”

      Seems the monkeys at Paignton and indeed Bristol Zoo are on the wrong side of the bars.

      Like

        • I doubt she has any evidence whatsoever for her statement. Yes, fruit bred for human consumption is selected for certain factors but these are generally long shelf life, large size and uniformity. It is a commonly-stated fact that as a consequence commercial fruit is not as tasty as the wild varieties. Since subjective “tastiness” depends on, amongst other things, sugar content then it is plausible some wild varieties may actually contain more sugar. I’ve not measured it so I don’t know.

          Does the zoo have a problem with fat monkeys? Personally I’ve never seen (or even seen pictures of) an excessively fat one either in the wild or in captivity. You can bet your bottom dollar that the captive monkeys have a longer life expectancy than wild ones, so it’s a mystery as to why our “expert” feels the need to claim there is something wrong with their nutrition. How can there even be such a thing as an “animal nutrition expert”? Has she developed some wonderful new way of asking the monkeys how they feel, yet she’s keeping it all to herself? Oh, I forgot, “nutrition” these days is all about being forced to eat what somebody else wants rather than about feeling healthy.

          She’s probably starting all this from a very flawed assumption about the “natural” diet. What animals eat in the wild is not necessarily optimal – it is whatever is available.

          It’s also interesting that many of the things which make plants bitter are “poisonous” (at least in that their LD50 is orders of magnitude higher than nicer-tasting compounds). If plants intended for human consumption are bred for sweetness (as she claims) they are likely to be lower in such compounds and hence may be construed “healthier” than wild varieties.

          Like

          • Matt, you asked, ” Has she developed some wonderful new way of asking the monkeys how they feel, yet she’s keeping it all to herself?”

            Actually, I believe she’s quoted in the article as rather smugly noting that since monkeys can’t speak they’re not able to complain about the new diet. Isn’t that sweet? Kind of like saying, “Well yes, we were experimenting on babies by sticking pins in them, but they never complained and we think it’s good for them to be made more alert through pin-sticking, so it’s OK.

            Sheeesh.

            :/
            MJM

            Like

            • Indeed, and perhaps even bordering on cruel when they know that the monkeys prefer bananas. “Animal nutrition experts” consider it ill-advised, and possibly even cruel, to feed dogs and cats raw meat, so even they admit that the “wild” diet isn’t always better.

              What next, releasing a predator into the monkey cage to give them some natural exercise?

              Like

  3. So now we have a pronouncement that orange juice is bad for you, after years of being told it’s full of Vitamin C and good for you

    Yes, but there’s no fun or reward in just saying the same old thing, just wait until the majority believes it then flip it on it’s head. Keeps them permanently wrong footed and easy to manage and very occasionally gives a small moment of triumph to people like me who can say, See, I knew I was right about butter!

    Like

    • It’s funny (but also disturbing) seeing helicopter parents we know now smugly talking about how they allow their kids juice as it makes the little darlings hyperactive (they’re 13). It’s the same thing they were smugly saying about fizzy drinks ten years ago when they were giving their kids juice and smugly implying that our kids wouldn’t be as healthy as theirs.

      I also know one who has no weight issues but has given up chocolate for January. When I asked why, her and her friend snorted and laughed in unison “because they’re bad for you!”.

      Their kids are obnoxious little shits, by the way. One of them now a teen, unable to get anywhere without being lifted by Mummy and already smoking (yes, I was in fits when I found out – Mumsy doesn’t know).

      Like

  4. I really enjoy these posts which you debunk by telling it as it is rather than the “puritans” version.

    Bear in mind that a lot if people left the UK to go to America so they could carry on their religion. Perhaps we could do that again but there’s no where we could send them? Maybe the South Pole?

    Like

    • Well the puritans do love penguins, polar bears and all things icy (or at least claim to) so it sounds like a win/win situation. In fact some of them did go fairly near there recently, trying to prove some sort of point, and got embarrassingly stuck!

      One minor problem, perhaps, is that I seem to remember it is obligatory to clear up your sh*t and remove it from Antarctica. The amount of it they spout may result in something of a logistical nightmare.

      Like

  5. Pingback: Closet Monster: March of the Purloined Prohibit...

  6. “Made up rubbish and guesses.” Here’s a little something I have had resting on my hard disc for some years. From timesonline so you will have to pay to see it properly.

    Guidelines on safe alcohol consumption limits that have shaped health policy in Britain for 20 years were “plucked out of the air” as an “intelligent guess”.

    The Times reveals today that the recommended weekly drinking limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 for women, first introduced in 1987 and still in use today, had no firm scientific basis whatsoever.

    Subsequent studies found evidence which suggested that the safety limits should be raised, but they were ignored by a succession of health ministers.
    Related Links

    * How ‘drinking’ experts ruled with no evidence

    * It’s impossible to create a guide that suits all

    * Let killjoys learn the bitter taste of defeat

    Multimedia

    * Alcohol issues explored in depth

    One found that men drinking between 21 and 30 units of alcohol a week had the lowest mortality rate in Britain. Another concluded that a man would have to drink 63 units a week, or a bottle of wine a day, to face the same risk of death as a teetotaller.

    The disclosure that the 1987 recommendation was prompted by “a feeling that you had to say something” came from Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced it.

    He told The Times that the committee’s epidemiologist had confessed that “it’s impossible to say what’s safe and what isn’t” because “we don’t really have any data whatsoever”.

    Mr Smith, a former Editor of the British Medical Journal, said that members of the working party were so concerned by growing evidence of the chronic damage caused by heavy, long-term drinking that they felt obliged to produce guidelines. “Those limits were really plucked out of the air. They were not based on any firm evidence at all. It was a sort of intelligent guess by a committee,” he said.

    Mr Smith’s disclosure casts doubt on the accuracy of a report published this week that blamed middle-class wine drinkers for placing some of Britain’s most affluent towns at the top of the “hazardous drinking” list.

    The study, commissioned by the Government, relied on the 1987 guidelines when it suggested that men drinking more than 21 units a week and women consuming more than 14 units put their health “at significant risk”.

    In a further attack on Britain’s drinkers, it was revealed yesterday that a coalition of health organisations is mounting a campaign to force a 10 per cent increase in alcohol taxation.

    The group, headed by the Royal College of Physicians, is also seeking to secure the support of MPs for stricter regulation of the drinks industry and warnings on alcohol advertising. A total of 21 bodies, including Alcohol Concern and the British Liver Trust, will form the Alcohol Health Alliance, according to Harpers Wine and Spirit magazine.

    A bottle of wine a day? I’m off to the pub.

    hangemall

    Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s