Science bites back.

The push to scare everyone off Electrofag continues with another exploding battery plugged into the wrong charger. No actual Electrofag, as usual. Just the battery. Because no mobile phones have ever gone pop while charging…

Yawn. Yet another pathetic attempt to justify yet another pointless ban. Electrofag is getting some of those ex-smokers, now vapers, back into pubs. Can’t have that, now can we? Some pubs might actually survive! We threw these wretched people out into the street, why can’t they just stay out there and let the pubs die? It looks like smoking and that is enough. Bar staff can’t tell the difference even when you puff on something that looks like a sonic screwdriver and the end lights up blue. In which case, watch out if you like to write in pubs and have a pencil-chewing habit. You’re next. Expect to hear a revival of the old ‘there is lead in pencils’ silliness.

Oh no! It’s worse than lead! It’s CARBON! Everyone in the pub will die. Chewing pencils causes gobble warming. The bar staff will get second hand scribbles. (makes note to remember to tell the drones that pencils are made of carbon).

Don’t expect any branch of science to weigh in on behalf of the vapers, and especially not the smokers, in the forseeable future. That’s more of a career killer than studying telepathy.

Even the antismokers don’t want vaping to succeed. It eats into their profits from band-aids with liquidised fags in them and gum made from ashtray contents. I’ve tasted it. It does taste like it’s made from ashtray contents. Nobody is going to swap smoking for that.

I wonder if I can convince the drones that all the gum they see on the pavements is in fact nicotine gum? They don’t have to believe all of it contains nicotine, they just have to realise that they don’t know which ones do, so don’t know which ones to avoid touching. Dance, pilgrim, dance.

No, we can expect no revisitation of the fakery behind smoking science other than all the work Professor Junican has done. In other areas though, the Cancerous Controllers are experiencing some resistance. Viewed from Cullingworth, here is an excellent breakdown of why the Church of Climatology is failing at an ever-increasing rate.

Lies and obfuscation are temporary bluffs, just to give you time to get away from someone planning to beat you to a pulp because they realised that what you said was a gross insult, sooner than you expected. Trust me on this one. They are not things that work forever. Sooner or later, everyone sees through them and if you haven’t had the sense to be far away when they do, somebody is going to get hurt.

The biggest push-back so far is against the new mantra of ‘Meat is Bad’. This one comes from all angles – the Green Vegetables, the Dawn of the Zombie Vegans, the Ecofreakos and all those who just want to control us for the sake of it.

Note: As usual, those who don’t eat meat but don’t insist we all live the same way are simply referred to as vegetarians or vegans. Those who don’t eat meat and demand that I can’t have any either are a) Green Vegetables, b) Zombie Vegans and c) on a future menu.

Today’s big scare is that meat will have Living Things crawling around in it when you eat it!

Not if you cook it properly it won’t. There is always a chance of some unpleasant little life form on meat. It does come from animals after all. As for chicken, the roasted ones are lovely but the living ones are the source of a stench stronger than an MP’s expenses claim sheet. Cook them until you can shatter the skin with a fork and carve the meat off with a hard stare (chickens or MPs, I don’t care which but add sugar to the MP to counteract the bitterness).

As long as food is properly cooked there is nothing to worry about. Oh, and cook a whole chicken breast-down. Stops it going dry. You can stop a dismembered chicken breast going dry by wrapping it in bacon before putting it in the oven. It’ll look pink (from the bacon) but it’ll be fine as long as it’s cooked right through. You get non-dry chicken and you also get bacon. Win-win.

Any shop selling meat that you can strap a collar and lead onto and walk out of the shop will not be a meat shop for long. No regulations needed – a shop that routinely gives customers a dose of squirty-bottom soon has no more customers. The good ones stay in business, the rubbish ones go bust. I know communists don’t like that but that’s not even capitalism. That’s just real life.

Naturally, in line with the rest of the monotonous same-story crap spouted by the creatively challenged Cancerous Controllers, meat gives you cancer and is as bad for you as smoking. But… but… I like Parma ham and smoked bacon! I am surely doomed! Eating smoked meat, drinking smoky whisky and actually smoking and yet I just had another of those birthday things. Every year, the scaremongers tell me it will be my last and yet, every year, another one comes around. This has been going on for decades. I feel justified in questioning the accuracy of their predictions. We’d all be better off just reading the newspaper horoscopes. At least they guess right once in a while and they aren’t all bad news.

A group of real scientists tried to shout down that last blast of nonsense. Proper experts in the field of protein nutrition. Actual, proper scientists as opposed to pot-smoking Californian hippies with ragged beards and charity-shop tank-tops who were employed to fill some lab-coats covered in Peruvian embroidery and late night taco stains.

This group of real scientists wrote to the editors of the journal concerned to express their amazement that this freakish twisting of reality could appear in a reputable publication (they put it a little more diplomatically than that). The editors refused to publish their comments as a letter to the editor and directed them instead to an online forum nobody bothers to read.

This wasn’t some backwater comic that routinely publishes papers lifted from 1970s journals that aren’t online, a quick change of author names and hey presto, a publication. That happens. I was one of those who liked to spend time down in the library stacks rather than restrict myself to the 1980s and later. An awful lot of good research has been forgotten and some of it has been nicked and republished.

No, this wasn’t one of those. This was a big journal. A journal you only have to get one paper into and your career is made. They let the Cancerous Controllers and their strange little men of backward science go unchallenged. They refused to listen to the real experts. But it is good to see the real scientists biting back at last and not leaving it at ‘publication refused’ any more. A good sign.

Their message is out there anyway. Just like the rebuttal of Climatology. Even the big journals are going to go down with this ship, it seems. Maybe we can look forward to the revival of ‘Aberdeen Letters in Ecology’, a short-lived little journal I once had a paper in. It never made it to the big time, in fact it faded away once its originator retired. Never even got as far as true publication – it was still at the ‘print and staple’ stage. Pity. The editor was fussy about what he’d accept even at that early stage. The journal had the right ethos.

Maybe, in this modern world of ‘here are the conclusions, find the numbers to fit’ it would be doomed anyway.

Remove all salt from your diet and you die. Eradicate all forms of fat and you die. Refuse to eat anything made of carbohydrate and you die.

Cut your protein intake right back and… sarcopenia

I’m still having fun with trying to revive pellagra. This is a new one to play with. “Eat meat and you will fail your sarcopenia test next time you visit the quack”.

“Doctor, did my sarcopenia tests come back?”

“You have it.”

[Drones punches the air] “Yes! I passed that one! Now, how about a pellagra test? I think I’m ready.”

As for me, I am a sample size of one, irrelevant in any definition of science. Not even the fakes would go so low. So this is all anecdotal and not science at all.

I am mid-fifties, eat loads of protein especially in the form of meat, salt, fat, carbohydrate, anything I can get. I smoke. I drink more than the made-up weekly limits even when, as this week, on early shift. I will eat fruit and vegetables but refuse to count them and rarely get to five a day. I will never achieve ten, I will not even try. Unless the fermented stuff counts.

My medication count is zero. I will take aspirin when in extreme pain. Last time I visited the NHS they tested everything because I said ‘yes’ to the smoking question. I had machines stuck to me I didn’t know existed. They found nothing. At the time I was a bit fat with a slightly shiny liver but fixed that within three months. With no pharmaceuticals.

I am not even overweight and not underweight either. I ignore all medical advice and actively go against it. There is nothing at all wrong with me. Well, physically.

Refusing fats will ruin the structure of every cell in your body. All your body cells are held together with a membrane made of fat. Refusing carbohydrates will mess up your liver and bugger your brain. Refusing salt will wreck your nervous system and your body’s isotonic balance (the drones think they know what that is, and that it is magically fixed by sports drinks even though the only sport they ever do is on an Xbox). By now you are confused and stupid but still dangerous. You can still hit.

Take away your protein and soon you don’t have the muscle power to get out of bed.

Even if you could remember how…

They don’t need a big war to reduce world population. All they need is stupidity and gullibility. There’s a lot of both around.

What they have failed to understand is that the ones who will be left will not be the easily controlled drones. All those will be dead.

They’ll be left with the likes of us.



36 thoughts on “Science bites back.

  1. I love it when these “newbie” scaremongers jump right in with what they think is the dead-cert headline grabber “as bad as smoking.” Aww bless! They want to play with the big boys and they are trying soooooo hard to be just like them!

    As it is, there are now so many contenders for perfectly normal things which have been cited as “the new tobacco,” or “as bad as smoking,” or “as dangerous as cigarettes,” etc etc that it can’t be long now before even the drones (newly-targeted as many of them now are – nothing sharpens the mind like being in the crosshairs, as any smoker knows) put two and two together in their gradually-awakening minds and realise that if X is “as bad as smoking” ergo smoking must therefore be “no more harmful than X.”

    I wonder if Tobacco Control have realised this yet? As far as I can tell, they haven’t been up in arms about the new kids on the block trying to steal their thunder, so maybe they’re still living in their idealistic little dreamworld where tobacco is “a unique product,” where there’s no such thing as a “slippery slope,” and where the health risks of smoking trump all others, always and under all circumstances, and where their position on the highest pedestal of the Healthist movement remains utterly inviolable. Good. The longer they remain in blissful ignorance, the more ground these new groups will be able to make whilst they aren’t looking.


  2. Lets get something staightened out here. People are sucking air into thier lungs through a device and expelling air, with some add CO2 back into said atmoshpere. Can you legislate that I can’t do that? If you answer “Yes, we can” do I still have the right to breathe through another device, say a filter mask, so I do not have to in hale London’s smog?? A device is a device, Correct?? And are not are lungs also a device? Perhaps we should all have nicotine emitting
    poppers in our lungs so we could secretly poison all the freaks…Good night and let me know what you think….


    • You don’t really need the nicotine to even be there. The dopes believe that 80% of ‘smoke’ is invisible and odourless. All you have to tell them is that you are wearing a nicotine patch, which works like this –

      The nicotine is absorbed through your skin, but in order to work just like smoking it has then to travel to your lungs, through your blood. You get the same effect as smoking when the nicotine is in your lungs but instead of breathing it in, you’re breathing it out. Tell them, in a calm and satisfied way, that this makes it all so much healthier for you.

      Give them a moment to realise that it’s not at all healthy for them, and watch the fear develop 😉


  3. Re the journal recommendation that the scientists publish their criticism to an online forum instead of seeking publication. Dave Kuneman and I encountered the same problem several years ago when we submitted a counter-study to Glantz’s original Helena study on heart attacks. The British Medical Journal made *exactly* that recommendation, after making a ridiculous claim that their primary objection to our results was that they offered “nothing new to what is already generally known.” Since our study DIRECTLY contradicted the whole claim of smoking bans causing instant and drastic reductions in heart attacks, and since the BMJ was regularly publishing studies making such a claim, their justification was, to say the least, a bit mystifying.

    Loved this btw: “I wonder if I can convince the drones that all the gum they see on the pavements is in fact nicotine gum? They don’t have to believe all of it contains nicotine, they just have to realise that they don’t know which ones do, so don’t know which ones to avoid touching. Dance, pilgrim, dance.”

    Somewhere in the depths of my files I have a picture of the used gums that are now commonly stuck to the undersides of smoke-banned bars. I don’t think you do pictures here… hmm…. ahh! You can see it in my “Dropbox” at:

    Quite colorful, eh? And probably CRAWLING with li’l buggers!



  4. “They don’t need a big war to reduce world population. All they need is stupidity and gullibility. There’s a lot of both around.”

    And world government and depopulation depends on it. Yes, I’m sure these food rules are designed to make people ill/lethargic/stupid. And I think that what you said a couple of weeks ago about halal meat sold as ‘normal’ is possibly part of it. Not knowing has made me give up meat this past year. E.g. the entire New Zealand lamb industry has an imam at every single slaughterhouse uttering stuff in Arabic while the creature is hanging upside-down, facing Mecca, having its throat slit.

    And some people think I’m nuts.

    There’s just so many big, big lies that are necessary for the world to believe (well, enough of the world) for the creation of world government and implementation of Agenda 21 to be realised. From our own UK perspective – look how it’s going to move full circle, but in a very bad way:

    1. Going back many centuries: start of the compromising of Christianity.

    2. 1540: The ‘Jesuits’ (Society of Jesus) was formed by the Church of Rome.

    3. Going back 300+ years: the Age of Enlightenment, where faith would be replaced by ‘reason’ even though scientific advances up until then were largely made by men of faith.

    4. Shortly afterwards saw the growth of Freemasonry, based on much older teachings of the mystery schools. Top Mason, Albert Pike, gave away many secrets in his book ‘Morals and Dogma’ (1871/2) including that Freemasonry aims to destroy Christianity and replace it with Luciferianism.

    5. Going back 200+ years: The ‘Enlightenment’ enabled atheists and vague deists to replace the Christian (in fact, almost every culture’s) worldview of young earth creationism with the philosophy of uniformitarianism (long ages and no catastrophes – clearly fraudulent – and no creation, therefore no Creator).

    6. 1848: ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (Marx & Engels). Marx called religion, “The opium of the people” and of course we see how religious people are treated under Marxist-Leninist regimes.

    7. 1859: ‘The Origin of Species’ was published convincing even many Christians in the 19th century and thus undermining scripture. Today it is a war between worldviews with ‘atheism’ becoming a religion in its own right.

    8. 1884: The Fabian Society founded. They believe that the only way to achieve a totally socialist society is to destroy the family. Every western government appears to have adopted their ‘principles’.

    9. 1945: The United Nations was formed. The plan was to use the pretext of peace, aid, health, education, etc. to gradually sign up member countries (almost every one now) to ‘legally binding’ agreements, thus diminishing national sovereignty.

    10. 1957: The Treaty of Rome, which created the EEC which was designed to morph into the EU and beyond.

    11. 1980s: Manmade global warming used as a device to unite nations under international laws and as an excuse to deindustrialise and therefore impoverish the West to aid in the global takeover.

    12. During the 20th century: most of the world’s media taken over to be controlled by governments and half a dozen individuals, thus readily spreading the propaganda to one and all with barely any major opposing (truthful/sceptical) views.

    13. 1992: UN Agenda 21. ‘Sustainable development’ to encourage depopulation.

    14+ The future: to build on all the centuries’ worth of ground work by finally removing all national borders and installing a world government (we’re nearly there, as many of the world’s laws start life at the UN and other intergovernmental conferences). With the world government will be a one world religion. There are many possible scenarios which can produce that. We have already seen the creation of the World Council of Churches and various interfaith organisations in preparation. There will be few ‘atheists’ left when the Freemason’s antichrist is revealed as the ‘saviour’ in this new system.


    • All but 14 have happened – but ‘The Origin of Species’ isn’t what you think it is. It also isn’t what the atheists think it is. It is not about the origin of life, the universe or anything like that.

      It describes the partitioning of one species into two or more separate species as a result of their separation. The timescales Darwin dealt with were likely to be in only hundreds of years, especially his Galapagos finches whose generation time is only a couple of years.

      So he did not refute Creation with that work. What enraged orthodox religion was the idea that God’s creation might change over time and that it was not a permanent and immutable thing. Which they should have realised, having only just come out of a Little Ice Age and developed the steam engine. I think they had also just exterminated the dodo (or was that a bit later?) which also proves that the world’s species list can change.

      He did expand on his theory to suggest that, if one species could come from others, then humans might have been different in the distant past and might change further in the future. The data he had did not support that theory, it was just a thought he had for some future studies. That was what religion seized on to condemn him. Not the age of the Earth (he wasn’t studying that at all) but the idea that God’s creation might not have been perfect on the first go, and that God might still be tinkering with bits of it here and there. And especially the idea that humans are not perfect little replicas of God’s image.


      • I included Darwin because he popularised the belief in evolution theory (even still called ‘Darwinism’ by many). It may have enraged religious folk at first, but many (probably the vast majority now) have embraced it. I did myself until I actually studied the claims starting nine years ago (only because a privately-funded academy in England was getting vicious media coverage for teaching Creationism and I wanted to learn more).

        Darwin may not have said it, but when people accept biological evolution, they seem to naturally also accept geological/astronomical ‘evolution’, i.e. billions of years: Big Bang, nebulae, stars and planets forming and the planets cooling, life somehow evolving from inanimate matter (thus breaking the Law of Biogenesis and a matter so improbable – impossible, I would say – that no brainiac with all the lab equipment in the world has been able to reproduce). And all followed by incredibly complex creatures appearing via totally random mutations. You know yourself that even a ‘simple cell’ is mindbogglingly complex.

        But Christians started accepting the Theory and tried fitting it into scripture with such devices as the Day-age Theory, where a ‘day’ mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis isn’t a normal day, but means a very long age, but Genesis is written as history, not as poetry or allegory and the word used is the same word ‘day’ meaning a 24 hour period – and it says the evening and morning was the first, second, etc. day.

        So, Darwin’s there because, like Marx, he popularised something (gave his name to) which became too big to put back into the box once in the hands of the Controllers…


        • “And especially the idea that humans are not perfect little replicas of God’s image.”

          Gen 1:27, ” So God created man in his own image…”

          But that was *before* the Fall; before sin had put a distance between God and man and man having to make moral decisions, etc.


          • Okay, I wasn’t thinking straight – so Adam was the only man ‘made in God’s image’ by strict interpretation. Eve was not, which is good because having a girlfriend who looks exactly the same as you would be more than a bit creepy. When they reproduced, their features would have mixed and changed over successive generations, so unless someone alive today is the spitting image of Adam, there is nobody who now looks exactly like God.

            I see the latest controversy in the news is that scrap of papyrus that suggests Jesus was married. Well, he did come to Earth to suffer for our sins and nobody single can claim any proper degree of suffering so…


        • I would argue that the first part of Genesis deals with prehistory, of a time before the creation of the sun and the earth. So the ‘day’ cannot have a definition at that point.

          Remember, this was a God trying to explain things to people who lived in tents and wandered around the desert. He would surely have recognised that it was going to be quite some time before he could start discussing astrophysics with them. So he would do what I have to do at work every day. Simplify. A lot.


        • An interesting aside – I have discussed this with a Jehovah’s Witness who’s a pretty nice fellow apart from constantly trying to get me into the Kingdom Hall. Nae chance matey, there’s no booze in there, I can’t smoke in there, there is nothing in there for me.

          His stance (and I guess it’s the JW stance sionce they are strict on their doctrines) is that you can have all the time you like between ‘Let there be light’ and its resulting big bang, and the creation of the sun and the earth. They don’t care how many billions of years you want to put in for the age of the universe because time is of no meaning to the God who created it. What they are unshakeable on is the age of this solar system. The rest of the universe is of no consequence to them.

          Which is a shame, because there certainly seems to be a hell of a lot of it.


        • “life somehow evolving from inanimate matter (thus breaking the Law of Biogenesis and a matter so improbable – impossible, I would say – that no brainiac with all the lab equipment in the world has been able to reproduce). ”

          Here, I would beg to differ. There’s a term for it that I can’t remember at the moment, but it involves ignoring the fact that wherever you are, is indeed “here.” The chances of you being “here” at this particular point in time and space are mind-bogglingly small … but here you are. So, instead of the chances being 1 in 10 to the umpteenth, they are simply 1 in 1.

          We’ve got who-knows-how-many quadrillion planet type bits of matter revolving around stars in the universe we know for billions upon billions of years, so by the time you take THAT into account, the infinitesimal chances of life and human being types coming into existence on at least one of them may not be that small. AND….. given that we’re here and typing at the moment… are equal to “1” unless you want to throw in the idea of a “God” power that operates outside of our universe as we know it.

          – MJM


      • I’m not totally clear on the definition of “species” at this point. I’d generally thought that it meant that a mating of two individuals could produce a viable offspring that therefore they were of the same species. But haven’t we seen things like an offspring of a lion and a tiger? And can’t you mate different species of dogs? Does the mating test only define something larger, like “Families” or somesuch (e.g. cats and dogs can’t mate to produc a dat or a cog?)



        • I think the Galapagos finches could interbreed but the offspring were not viable. For practical reasons. Some had short, tough beaks for cracking seeds and nuts. Some had long thin beaks for picking insects out of holes. Interbreeding might give short thin beaks or tough long beaks, neither of which worked for either food source.

          So they could interbreed and probably did, but their kids were useless and all died.

          Given time, this would reach a point (might have already) where the accumulated genetic differences meant they could no longer interbreed.

          Like horses and donkeys – interbreeding produces a aterile mule. There’s the intermediate form…


  5. We are seeing the beginning of the divergence of humans into two distinct evolutionary variants. There will be tall, beautiful, intelligent and innovative ones – real humans – and short, ugly, stupid and incapable ones – the drones, hominids, righteous, etc.
    This is part natural selection and part-caused by watching TV with the closed and inflexible mind-set which we all delight to mock.
    It might be funny if it wasn’t true!


    • Eloi and Morlocks. Except the Eloi weren’t smart or innovative and the Morlocks just ate the Eloi.

      Let’s hope we develop through that stage because we’re just about there now.


        • Hmm… are there perhaps three different kinds of carnivores? Those that eat only vegetarians (e.g. only eat cows etc) and those who eat only carnivores and those who are happy to eat either one?



          • Dunno – I suspect carnivores eat whatever they can kill without suffering too much damage themselves. If they are likely to be rendered incapable of bringing down a second meal, they might well skip the first.

            I think a tiger would have little trouble with a fox though.


  6. Oh, Parma Ham, smoked bacon, smoked sausage, chicken wrapped in bacon, oh my, oh my. You know, we live in the best place ever where one can buy dry cured bacon, pork sausage, freshly picked asparagus that can be served in butter. And not to mention the Old Pultney 21 year old. Bliss


  7. XX What enraged orthodox religion was the idea that God’s creation might change over time and that it was not a permanent and immutable thing.XX

    Because that belies their myth, that everything “God” created is perfect.

    My normal retort; “Oh, really? Did “God” not create Stalin, Hitler, and Pol-pot then? Or are you saying they were perfect as well?”

    (Is Pol-pot not a referendum on the legalisation of cannabis?)


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: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.