Are you sitting comfortably? Then you must die.

We are now well used to being told that smoking causes cancer, drinking causes cancer, sugar, salt, sunlight and soft toilet paper… and just about everything else in the world causes cancer. Oh, I forgot cosmic rays. Everything in the entire universe causes cancer in humans. But only in humans. The universe hates us and sees us as its biggest ever error, so is turning every part of itself carcinogenic in an attempt to eradicate us before we escape this tumour/planet and metastasise throughout the galaxies. The universe is trying chemotherapy on itself.

Everything we experience causes cancer because people who get cancer are also people who experience these things and in the post-logic world of NewScience, correlation is causation. People who drive cars sometimes crash those cars, people who don’t drive cars never crash cars, so crashing is a direct and definite result of driving. If you drive, you will crash, because only drivers crash and (post-logic world, remember) all drivers will crash eventually. Some hospital workers will be along shortly to tell us how they have seen the terrible results of driving, patients dying in pain, broken and twisted with tubes in every orifice, and they will tell us how driving ruins lives and all drivers are doomed to suffer the same fate.

This is the logic that tells the drones that all smokers will get cancer, all drinkers will become alcoholics, anyone drinking a can of sugary fizz will become obese, and so on. Even when observation is wildly at odds with their crazed imaginings, those crazed imaginings are reality and real reality is wrong. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Church of Climatology, where we are routinely treated to ‘there will be no more snow in the UK’ and six months later, ‘oops, we didn’t order any grit or snow ploughs because the Climatologists said we wouldn’t need them’. Meanwhile we are farting bubbles in the snow and trying to move away before it escapes the snowline at our chests.

Everyone sits down now and then. I like it, especially since I now have a job that does not involve it at all. Journalists sit down a lot because they are writing up their stories. I wonder if the one who wrote this story was sweating profusely as he/she/it typed?

Yes, in Expert Land, sitting down gives you cancer. Why? Well, because everyone who gets cancer has sat down, therefore… oh, it’s not hard to work it out, it’s not even science.

This does mean that those confined to wheelchairs should all be lumpier than my grandmother’s gravy (my father used to ask whether he should carve the chicken or the gravy first, but even he dared not say it to her face). Those wheelchair athletes on the Paralympics must be CGI fakes since according to the post-logic science, anyone who has been seated that long must now be so lumpy that the Elephant Man goes to freak shows to look at them.

All those ASH drones who trawl the internet looking for smokers to abuse are now at greater risk of lung cancer than the people they pretend are attacking them. All those Experts who are typing up reports are at far greater risk of lung cancer than the smokers forced to stand outside to smoke – because they do not allow seating in the risible ‘shelters’.

All the nonsmokers sitting in the pub chortling about their mates outside with their coffin nails… you sitters are now at greater risk of cancer than the standing smokers.

All those fat arses on green seats in the House of Commons… the seats are plain green to deter their sitting addiction and there, right in front of them (well, in front of their arses but since that’s where they speak from, in front/behind becomes hard to differentiate) is proof that plain green packaging deters nobody. They are at greater risk of cancer, including lung cancer, than smokers. Their seats are plain green and still they sit. Such a powerful addiction!

Sitting is more addictive than heroin, and then people sit on each other’s laps. Second hand sitting! We are all doomed! Children are encouraged to sit on adult laps and are even told to ‘sit down’. Forced to, in school, all day. Child abuse! Won’t someone think of the cheeldren?

Or, as a general call to all politicians and whatever is left of science out there – won’t someone THINK? No, I suppose that’s old-fashioned now. Thinking is what old people and retrograde youth engage in. Modern, progressive people prefer knee-jerk reaction based on prejudice and manufactured data twisted into a Moebius strip so that you can go round and round without ever coming to a conclusion.

Well, tonight I have eaten bacon (fried, not grilled), a couple of jam doughnuts and a blueberry muffin, some salad leaves to negate all the calories, and am currently sitting, smoking and drinking all at once. And I am not dead. Not even ill. Am I a statistical anomaly or am I, as I suspect, well within the bell curve? My theory holds that most people actually live like me and that those who follow the whims of the Healthists are the anomalies. They are vocal anomalies, used to full effect by the smug and pompous politicians who are in turn merely hand-puppets for the unelected proctological Righteous.

Add the sedentary lifestyle to my list of Things I Do To Defy The Healthists and I must have died twenty years ago. All that exercise at work does not matter, according to the article. Spending hours sitting around writing is yet another thing that has killed me already. A Healthist prediction of my remaining lifespan must surely be a negative number.

So… if I am officially dead, why am I paying tax? I should get a big granite headboard for my bed that says ‘Here lies Leg-iron, not dead, only sleeping, but maybe dead, best give him a nudge and check’.

Later I will commission a gravestone that says ‘Not sleeping, actually dead this time’.

There are those who say that sitting is unnatural for humans, and that it is the position of the sit that causes all the problems. To which I reply with a scientific term I have used a lot in recent years – ‘Bollocks’.

Monkeys sit on things. They’ll sit on chairs if they have them but they also sit on logs or rocks. Dogs sit. Cats sit. On chairs, if you aren’t looking. They sit in a different way because they have a different body shape, but still they sit.

Chairs were not designed by a carcinogenic sadist who then forced everyone in the world to assume an unnatural position. They were designed to provide a more comfortable place to sit than a random rock or fallen tree. If they were not comfortable, the chair maker wouldn’t sell any. He’d have to rethink his design, maybe leave out the central spike even though it ruins the aesthetics and does mean people could slide off when drunk. Perhaps put the chair arms at elbow level rather than shoulder level. Add legs to raise the seat off the floor. Increase the number of legs from one to three or four to improve stability. Oh, considerable research and much trial and error was involved in the final design of the chair.

I don’t for a moment believe that chairs are carcinogenic. It is insanely ridiculous unless you have a chair made of plutonium and if you had that much plutonium in one place we’d all know about it by now.

But I know quite a few people who will believe it. They will believe that sitting is more dangerous than smoking and I know of a few who sit while smoking! Even more who sit around talking about the smokers standing outside. Can I resist playing with this new absurdity? Am I likely to even try to resist?

No.

It’s probably an addiction. Everything else is now.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “Are you sitting comfortably? Then you must die.

  1. I was just being sarcastic..Sorry leggy…..After posting I saw that it could be taken the wrong way…

    Poor attempt at humour…

    Like

      • Why think that it is funny? Why should it not be true? Remember Frank Davis’s mock-up of how cancer cells replicate? They take advantage of spaces and divide more rapidly than normal cells. Thus, it is true (to an extent!) that cancer causes cancer.

        Like

        • Metastasis is indeed a case where cancer causes cancer – one cancer can spread. That’s not funny at all.

          Convincing drones that cancer is contagious – now that’s funny. Well, perhaps only to the twisted.

          Like

  2. A great post as always. I often wonder about his obsession with cancer – nearly every ‘news’ programme or newspaper has a cancer story, day in, day out. In addition it’s cancer charities appealing over and over again for donations. Not that I want to go back to a world where the word ‘cancer’ was only whispered in shocked tones – but this constant barrage of advice to ‘get checked’, ‘check yourself’, don’t to this and that, points to an unhealthy preoccupation. One begins to feel that the state is kind of ‘wishing’ it on us if the transgress in the slightest way – but then I’ve answered my own question perhaps?

    I’ve heard about this sitting down gives to cancer nonsense before. I spend a great deal of time sitting down because I am a voracious reader – the great achievements of English literature being my forte. I amused myself recently by imagining a public-health campaign including labels on the covers of books exhorting the reader to spend no more that 30minutes at a time sitting reading and suggesting that reading while using an exercise bike or walking would be more beneficial. Libraries and bookshops might, perhaps be decorated with posters saying ‘Jane Austen causes cancer’, ‘Keep Virginia Woolf away from children’, ‘Readers of Tennyson die early’.

    We live in a mad, mad world and only blogs such as yours help keep me sane.

    Like

    • SA, you’re not thinking this through properly. Wall posters aren’t sufficient. Every book should carry a health warning and a scary lump picture. And be sold in a plain cover, of course.

      Like

    • Cancer is fairly common – if you count all the warts and other benign forms. Deadly cancers are not common. Yet it seems everyone must worry about very rare forms of cancer now. Two or three people die of a rare cancer and suddenly everyone will get it if they don’t live the Perfect Life. Even though, often, the one who died was slim, fit, healthy and didn’t smoke or drink to excess.

      Cancer is mostly down to bad luck. Sure, you can increase your chances by cutting blue asbestos with an angle grinder or tanning yourself with uranium but no matter how assiduously you avoid cancer-causing things, there is no way to avoid the bad-luck kind.

      Even doctors don’t believe that now.

      Like

  3. “If they were not comfortable, the chair maker wouldn’t sell any.”

    Well, that’s it then. I blame Big Chairs. They even make little ones for children – how appalling is that? Marketing directly aimed at cheeeldren! Make chairs come with health warnings, I say!

    Like

  4. No accounting for human stupidity, I suppose. One of my old profs at uni used to drive it into our young thick skulls about the importance of correctly interpreting data. His mantra used to be: ‘Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.’

    Like

    • I have found no limit to human stupidity and I have delved very deep indeed. They really will believe any old shit as long as it’s carefully presented.

      That mantra was drummed into us all. For the modern moron, it has been reversed.

      Like

  5. Talking about the prevalence of cancer, a comment at the BSC led me back to the Doll Doctors Study to check the facts. 34,000 (out of about 55,000) male doctors took part. Over the course of 50 years, some 4,000 were lost to the study for various reasons (like moving abroad). After 50 years, of the remaining 30,000, 25,346 had died. Of those, 1,052 died from cancer of the lung. That is 4.05%. At the beginning of the study (I’m guessing now because I can’t be bothered looking up the figures), some 70% of doctors were smokers. Gradually, over the 50 years, many stopped smoking and, of course, the eldest ones died (whether smokers or not). Thus, smoking prevalence among doctors fell greatly.
    Now here is a strange thing.
    Even though more and more doctors in the study gave up smoking, the gap between ‘age at death’ of smokers and non-smokers got worse in the second half of the 50 year study! How could that be, when few and fewer doctors were smoking? Doll ‘guessed’ (since he had no evidence) that the reason was that it was predominantly non-smokers who were gaining from improvements in ‘general wellbeing’.
    ——
    So LC is rather rare, even though it has been elevated to epidemic proportions by the TC publicity machine. How much less prevalent, therefore, must be the incidence of LC caused by SHS?
    But it gets sillier and sillier. Michael Siegel bemoaned the death at the age of 54 of a famous American baseball player from oral/salivary gland cancer, and claimed that he definitely contracted that disease from chewing tobacco. I checked the UK figures for that type of cancer, and they are tiny. What is more, there is a tiny number of children between the age of 1 and 14 who have died from that type of cancer. Why should little children get that type of cancer? BUT THEY DO!
    What I find weird is that the whole of Tobacco Control ABSOLUTELY AVOIDS AT ALL COSTS the idea of genetic weaknesses. If they were genuine scientists, they would wish to investigate that possibility, but they have wilfully avoided it for the last few decades. That must have been a deliberate decision.

    Like

    • They also avoid considering any other possible carcinogens – fumes from increased traffic over the years, for example.

      Interestingly, the antismokers ignore acroleins in fried foods, while the antifatties ignore all airborne carcinogens…

      Everyone, in these idiots’ eyes, only ever does one thing. The thing that brings in the grant money from unbelievably gullible politicos. There are no other factors.

      It’s not science. It’s the ghostly rattle of the gravy train passing through.

      Like

  6. “I don’t for a moment believe that chairs are carcinogenic”. Legiron, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if “Chairs Are Carcinogenic” were to be the next shock NewScience headlines.

    Here’s a thought – if sitting down leads to a cancerous doom, and taking exercise only partially compensates for this, could cyclists be especially at risk? Being as they are sitting on bicycle saddles, often for hours on end?

    So a future shock NewScience headline might well be “Doctors Say Cycling Gives You Cancer”, right after the one about carcinogenic chairs. :o)

    Like

  7. Alternative present synopsis – Jack McConnell et al are still in power at the parliamint. After digesting some more junk studies and heavy lobbying from various sock puppets, proudly announce after a rigged (and ignored) public “consultation”, the passing of The Health, Sitting and Social Care Act 2015″ the banning of seating in all enclosed “public” spaces, transport and work vehicles. Soon they are all plastered with wee “NO SITTING” signs featuring a comfy armchair with a big red circle and stroke over it.

    Sitters will be forced outside into public view, haunched over beer crates down some dismal back alley, unless they smoke too, then they are required to stand at least 40 feet from the sitters…

    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