Dominoes

No, it’s not about pizza.

Today I was blocked again on Twitter. It’s what the indoctrinated and the one-track-minded would love to do in real life: just silence any alternative viewpoint. Except… it doesn’t silence anyone. It just stops the blocker’s involvement in the conversation.

So I guess the one who blocked me won’t see this. Should I start to care, I’ll be sure to post an update. I’ve given up on these people. They cannot bear to consider any other view and I long ago tired of talking to walls.

His argument was that cattle produce methane, methane causes global warming, so if people eat less beef there’ll be less cattle and thereby save the planet.

I pointed out that if he wants less cattle then he must also restrict all milk products. I mentioned falling dominoes. Twitter’s limitations did not allow me to elaborate the difference between beef and dairy herds and I doubt he’d be interested anyway. Nor would he be interested in hearing about all the other ruminant species out there. I’m blocked now but well, I’m not involved in education any more. The wilfully ignorant are not my problem. He’ll see it one day, when his personal domino falls, but I’m not here to save him. I’m here to save me, and anyone else who will listen.

My background is in intestinal microbiology. My PhD was on the metabolism in the gut of ruminant animals. So yes, I know what I’m talking about here.

I saw the bandwagon of methane reduction when it started. I worked in labs that jumped on that bandwagon. Some actually believed it would make a difference but most saw a good way to keep the department funded. Sadly, that part of science is necessary: experiments don’t pay for themselves. So, many labs run high-profile projects for funding and do the interesting stuff behind the scenes. You only get to hear about the interesting stuff when it finally does something impressive.

The interesting stuff won’t get any funding as speculation, it has to prove itself first. It does that on the back of bandwagon grants.

Methane is trivial as a greenhouse gas. It was long ago shown that water vapour is the major greenhouse effector but you can’t take exhalations and you can’t tax the sun on the ocean. Therefore, carbon dioxide and methane, extraordinarily tiny components of the air, have to be continuously blamed. There’s no money in steam.

If there was that much methane in the air then every time I lit a cigarette, the flare would be visible in Edinburgh. Methane isn’t inert, there are soil bacteria that use if for growth so it does get used up. It isn’t the final end product, it’s part of a cycle. I worked on methane oxidising bacteria as one of those Interesting Things at the back of another project. Didn’t get too far but I did get a paper out of it.

You cannot isolate one single reaction and claim you have the answer to the global ecosystem. It’s a very complex ecosystem. Change one part of it and all the rest will change to adapt to it. Like rabbits or cane toads in Australia – meddle with an ecosystem and all hell can break loose. One change is like toppling that first domino. It’s hard to stop the chain reaction once it starts.

The Green God’s religion does not recognise dominoes. To them, every scientific result is to be taken in isolation and then applied to the entire planet as Gospel. Unquestionable. ‘The science is settled’. Yeah, well, if it’s unquestionable then it’s not science. It’s a cult. They can’t grasp that.

The also can’t grasp that cows are not the only source of methane – in fact they aren’t even the major source. Mud flats, peat bogs, any swamp anywhere is pumping out methane all the time (I spent three years working on bacteria in estuarine mud flats too). And we won’t even start on what happens when a subsea methane clathrate collapses. The ice worms that live in them are cute though.

Cows don’t produce methane. No mammal does, not directly. Bacteria in their guts produce methane and those bacteria are not specific to the gut. They live in swampy ground and anywhere it’s wet and there’s no or very little oxygen. Including deep water. Cows are a small part of the whole ecosystem and yet they are to be wiped out to save the planet? Total extinction will have no measurable effect on methane production at all.

That’s not why they are being wiped out. They are to be removed so we don’t eat meat. There’s a reason for that.

I remember when butter was suddenly deemed a Terrible Thing. Spread butter on your toast and a heart attack was only hours away. It’s been shown to be bollocks now but it persisted for decades. It coincided with the rise of margarine, then the pretend-butter spreads I refer to as plasticine. Butter, it turns out, is healthier than the synthetics but it took a long time to get the truth past the censors.

Doesn’t matter if the cows are to be eradicated. All we’ll have left are the synthetics. Synthetic milk already exists. It’s horrible but it exists.

Sugar is suddenly evil. Well not really suddenly, it’s been sneered at for a long time. That started with the introduction of artificial sweeteners and has become harsher and more desperate recently as people are rejecting the synthetics in favour of actual sugar.

Today’s new product is insect protein. A whole industry is trying to get off the ground. Faced with the choice, would you pick the burger made from beef or the one made from cockroaches? Yeah, it’s not a hard choice.

So it has to be made a hard choice. Push up the price of meat with ‘greenhouse tax’ and ‘fat tax’ and boost the guilt trips and soon the roachburger is all you can afford. The drones fall for it every time.

I have seen Twitter drones insist that Electrofag is designed by the tobacco companies to keep us smoking. I don’t engage in conversation with that level of stupid, it’s so concentrated it might be contagious. There’s no point.

Electrofag is the biggest threat the tobacco companies have ever faced.  I have several and I like them – although I still like the real ones too. Many have switched away from the real ones to Electrofag, and many new ‘smokers’ became new vapers instead. Isn’t that what those who hate tobacco companies wanted? A big dent in their profits?

It’s not what those who live on other people’s earnings want. Tobacco taxes account for an enormous amount of revenue and Electrofag is denting that too. This should give anti-tobacco governments a problem. Their drones will want to cheer on the demise of tobacco but those at the top can’t allow it to happen. What happens to their funding, their very reason for existence, if we all switch to vaping?

Fortunately the drone mind is easy to manipulate. Just tell them it’s another kind of tobacco, tobacco companies sell it, and all vapers turn into smokers. Those are all total lies, none of them ever happened, but the drones need no evidence. They will believe what they are told and block anyone who tries to tell them anything different.

Twitter is perfect for drone control. They’ll block any reasonable voice and end up talking amongst themselves, just reinforcing the indoctrination they’ve been exposed to until the Cult of the Green God is ready to launch its own jihad on we filthy heretics.

It’s not new. Many cults have used the same techniques to produce blindly-believing followers. This one pretends to use science. Its pronouncements come from academics.

I’ve met an awful lot of academics. Some are at genius level, most are merely clever but some make you wonder how they got in there. I can think of two PhD’s I’ve met who made me wonder if the qualification was really worth anything at all.

Yes, there are idiot academics. They make up for their uselessness by fast-talking and sounding convincing. The cunning ones build a following and the really devious get the press on side. It’s hard to sack someone when the press has built them up to hero status.

Personally I avoid any contact with the press. I talked to one once, was totally misrepresented and had phone calls from genuine scientists wondering what the hell I was up to. Now, I have no comment for any reporter anywhere. Read the journal papers, wait for the data to be published. I’m not talking until that’s done. At the moment I work as a consultant for commercial companies so can’t say much of anything anyway.

I’ve never blocked anyone on Twitter and never been blocked for abusive language. I’ve been blocked twice for agreeing with people, once for sympathising, and a few times for trying to tell them the truth. They don’t want the truth, they want their beliefs.

Let them have their beliefs. I work in science. Everything I do can be questioned and sometimes, those questions reveal to me something I’ve missed. I do not silence dissent. I encourage it. It’s a source of new information. I have no time to play with those who believe ‘the science is settled’.

That’s a religion. I do not have time for religion.

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “Dominoes

  1. Some interesting thoughts you cover today. The way that the concepts and constructs weave in and out and around eachother, almost has that “Babylonian Flair” of, do we A) protect the infrastructure, or B) protect the people that this infrastructure is from, of, to, and through, via for.

    Not that those constructs are not equally applicable today as they were back then, nor that they are equally applicable. But I think there are prolly some lessons to be learned in there.

    I was just talking with someone yesterday with respect to the role of matter in different states in different parts of our solar system, and how those relate to the role and roles of the same matter in different states here on Earth/Terra. Been thinking about that liquid Methane on Titan and how that relates/connects directly to frozen methane here on Earth/Terra. But I’ve also been thinking about things like liquid Oxygen, liquid Hydrogen, liquid Nitrogen, liquid Helium and how those things are extremely rare where we live, save for our modern contexts and usages. When a process happens out of sequence within the natural order or things, especially within an environment that contains life as we know it, it seems to me that the environment where this life exists will do whatever possible to make the changes necessary in order to continue to accommodate that life. This leads me to believe that there exists a natural propensity to draw energy from other sources within the frameworks of these gears and cogs within the strings and stings of energy within matter as we are now coming to understand these things in the micro/macro and how they relate to each other.

    But all that is just my opinion. Your comment about methane production as it relates to bovine animals/bacteria and humans/bacteria, got me to thinking about anaerobic life and their needs requirements for oxygen, even if that requirement is not to require it. What happens to these bacterial lifeforms, when we oxygen breathers are so hell-bent on flooding the atmosphere with good clean breathable oxygen, that we kill everything else? Yeah…I think you are onto something pretty important with respect to the “1 within the 1” and it’s removal.

    Your analogy of someone grabbing something and running with it out of convinience, is almost like someone taking a book from a library with no intention of ever returning it. Later, they start to feel guilty, try and return the book, but the library is gone. Or…maybe the library is still there, but the book has already been replaced.
    I dunno.
    Lots to think about.
    ó¿ó

    Liked by 1 person

    • Later, they start to feel guilty, try and return the book, but the library is gone. Or…maybe the library is still there, but the book has already been replaced.

      Two ways of going extinct –

      The environment (library) no longer supports that species so it dies out. Natural selection.

      The species is killed off by another species (library book stolen) leaving a space in the environment (bookshelf) that will be occupied by another species/book.

      It’s a self-balancing system and the scary reality is that it doesn’t care if we’re in it or not. George Carlin was right. The planet has survived far worse than us and recovered. It’s been a ball of molten rock, it’s been totally covered in ice and it’s been smashed by a huge rock at least once and it’s still going. We’re eczema as far as the planet is concerned. A skin irritation, nothing more.

      The planet is going to be fine. It’s the human race that’s fucked.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “I’ve given up on these people. They cannot bear to consider any other view and I long ago tired of talking to walls.”

    Ha! Indeed. For something like that, scroll to 57 mins on this video and watch the woman say vehemently “a human being does not need a drug to be happy”. So let’s close down Starbucks, Costa, Thorntons, Greene King, McDonalds, Juice Bars, Patisserie Valerie and Greggs then.

    I take it she vigorously refused the “coffee and biscuits” provided afterwards and went around the room slapping them out of her co-attendees’ hands too?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’ve had arguments with veggies who insist that all land occupied by livestock could be turned over to crops. I’ve tried pointed out we have hundreds of square miles of land that grow nothing but grass, that all the animals (including wildlife) have to die if their dream is to come true, but not one of them ever saw reality.

      They’ll try to grow potatoes on top of Ben Nevis and wonder why the country is covered in starved corpses. There is no reasoning with the dogmatic. Let’s just let them die.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Hi Leggy

    Thanks for yet another interesting biology lesson.

    Regarding cows & methane production, those bovines trail far behind termites as a global source of CH4.

    Oh, and rice paddies too.

    The Joy of Sex is only marginally better than the Joy of Pissing-off Vegans, when pointing out to them their non-dairy milk rice pudding, or veggie curry + rice is destroying the planet.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Actually, if you want a good laugh, point out that soya is laced with phytoestrogens. These are oestrogen-mimic chemicals produced by the plant precisely for the purpose of fucking up the endocrine systems of anything stupid enough to try eating the plant. As such, these chemicals are really rather effective at what they do, and when eaten to excess have a markedly feminising effect on males.

      Human vegans don’t eat quite enough to have all that much of an effect, but once the concept is introduced into conversation, then it can be referred back to repeatedly at the slightest effeminacy, to the extent that the accused vegan will start to look and act like a caricature of testosterone overdose just to escape the ridicule.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Skin irritation? Maybe infestation is nearer the mark. After all, if humans died out, the insects would hardly notice; if insects died out, so would humans.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It’s already been tried under New Labour.

    Whitehall turf war saves cows’ hides
    2009

    “Let me tell you the story of a classic Whitehall farce, a tale of how the government came within a whisker of advocating bovine genocide.
    It all began when officials at the Department of Health decided to part-fund a piece of independent research looking at how health professionals could help combat the effects of climate change.
    The scientists came up with a rather courageous idea. Why not kill 30% of Britain’s cows and sheep?
    Not only would this help save the environment; it would also make us healthier.

    The theory goes like this: if you have less ruminant livestock, you emit less climate-damaging methane into the atmosphere.
    You also have less meat to eat, which means less saturated fat in our diets and thus less heart disease.

    Policy on the hoof?

    Officials liked the wheeze so much they decided Health Secretary Andy Burnham should give a speech at the launch of the report by the Lancet medical journal.
    There Mr Burnham congratulated the Lancet on its “timely report”.
    The Department of Health put out a handy press release summarising the report’s conclusions.
    It even rang up the Department of Energy and Climate Change and got it involved.
    A useful quote from Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband was included on the press release.

    Not to be outdone, a quote from international development minister Mike Foster was produced. All agreed that health and climate change could be two sides of the same coin.

    There was only one problem: no one had bothered to tell the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and, as its name suggests, it is in charge of cows.
    Defra officials gently pointed out that perhaps the “kill-a-cow, save-the-world” policy might have a few flaws.

    First, the farming community would be a tad unhappy. And sure enough the National Farmers’ Union was apoplectic, raging at the “ill-informed and simplistic report”, condemning ministers for their “poor judgement”.

    Second, cutting livestock in this country will not mean people eat less meat.
    We will just import more from places like Brazil and Argentina, who will cut down more rainforest to satisfy this lucrative extra demand from Europe.

    Third, how exactly was the government going to go about culling 30% of Britain’s ruminant livestock?

    Not surprisingly the media began asking questions. Was Andy Burnham really advocating killing cows?
    For the Conservatives, shadow environment secretary Nick Herbert said that “careless demands like this don’t just undermine farming, they erode public support for action on climate change”.

    Moo-ving on

    As the penny slowly dropped, the screech of brakes could be heard across Whitehall.
    The Department of Health press office rang to make clear that Mr Burnham was not endorsing the Lancet report.
    Nothing he had said could be read as endorsing it. It was not government policy to cut Britain’s livestock.
    Other officials rang to emphasise that Mr Burnham was a meat-eater and not a vegetarian.
    Perhaps, it was suggested, the press office had mistakenly elided the two events. The climate change department rang to make the same points.

    In the meantime, Defra acted to calm worried farmers.
    A senior official sent out an email telling them not to worry about the Lancet report: “This, as we know, rather over-simplifies a complex issue and I don’t think that Andy Burnham has actually said anything that supports the headline that govt supports a 30% reduction in farm animals.”

    So, at the end of the day, there was no story. The government did not take on the farmers.
    Another report gathered dust on Whitehall’s shelves. No cows died on the altar of climate change.
    What we learned, though, is that the left hand of this government does not always know what the right hand is doing.
    And, when it comes to turf wars, Defra can occasionally punch its weight.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8379759.stm

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Yummy cockroach-burgers can wait – we already have Quorn. These repulsive cat-litter nuggets are made from a slime-mould. “Myco protein” sounds so much more palatable than slime doesn’t it?

    I like to wind up Veggies by telling them tomato and potato plants are meat-eaters, which is just about true. Both have evolved stem hairs which trap small insects: these die and fall to the ground, for eventual absorption through the roots. No more pizza or chips – the horror!

    Liked by 1 person

    • To me, ‘mycoprotein’ is slime 😉

      I think I could show a veggie a few videos of slime moulds and convince them the moulds show intelligence in their ‘slug’ formation, you know. It isn’t – but to the nonscientist it will look like it ;D

      Like

  7. On a slightly related note this ‘advice’ made my piss reach boiling point this morning
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/health/public/pollen-forecast/hay-fever
    “Don’t allow smoking in the house as this will irritate the lining of your nose, eyes, throat and airways, making your hay fever symptoms worse. “

    Will it ? Got any science Met Office Guys, to back that up? I have always found that smoking actually helped with my allergies/hayfever, I assume all that tarry goodness desensitizes my nose. But what especially narked was the suggestion that the sneezing home owner of course wouldn’t be a smoker anyways.

    Also the pollen count page itself had a handy anti-alcohol ad (see how the ‘95%’ is placed? Actually has nothing to do with the bottle of buckfast graphic).

    Liked by 1 person

      • That map doesn’t make sense to me. The pollen count follows closely where most people live and so you would expect lower pollen counts in urban areas, but they are higher in the south east, moving into the Midlands and up to the cities of Lancs and Yorks with a spar ending in Newcastle. The orange band across central Scotland is a dead give-away as is the area covering the valleys of south Wales, ending at Swansea.

        It looks more like a map of poor air quality due to pollution, not pollen.

        Are people’s gardens the source of most of the pollen? If so, why do we rarely see a bee from one year to the next. What’s going on?!

        Like

    • Alcohol is unrelated to hay fever and so is smoking. Bacon sandwiches, blue cheese, driving a Prius or insulting a gazelle are as much related to the incidence of hay fever as are drinking and smoking.

      Really. These people expect trust. I’d rather trust a blood-drenched clown on a midnight subway train. At least he is honest in his intentions.

      Like

  8. I have found that, by far, the people most likely to block/unfriend you are politicians. Say one thing they disagree with and you’re history as far as they’re concerned. Even my own spineless MP blocked me so that I can’t even see his profile. Actually, the previous one did as well. That’s “democracy” then?

    I have had to block people myself. The rudest, most stupid people on the internet are neo-Darwinian atheists and they just cannot be bothered to use one braincell to consider the possibility that not everything they have been told is true (how likely is that anyway?). Their Dawkins quotes and outdated arguments (like the 97% junk DNA fraud) are tedious and embarrassing.

    How many of our adversaries are paid shills? The EU has admitted to employing people to promote the EU on social media. I’m sure it goes much further, so that anyone arguing against the climate change/LGBT/healthist/globalist agenda can expect to be monitored, maybe by a company like Bright Planet or Ntrepid for whichever government department is paying them.

    I have noticed how there seem to be as many fakes on the internet as genuine people, causes and information. Most of the big petition sites are leftist fronts, e.g. Soros-backed Avaaz. Many of the review websites are faked, like Trust Pilot, who have a free version and a paid version. They look after their paid customers, so that the worst companies out there (like 1&1 Internet) get good scores, while many non-paying companies get comically low scores. A big incentive to sign up? A protection racket?

    Then there’s Wikipedia. If ever the powers elite wanted to control what the masses consider to be ‘facts’ they couldn’t have done better. A couple of years ago, I noticed that a page about a particular essential oil which has helped myself and millions of people was inaccurate, so I amended it to reflect reality and cited various sources. BTW, the ‘bad review’ of this valuable oil was based solely on one US Government department’s opinion, so I consider Wikipedia to be a government mouthpiece.

    What was extraordinary was that within minutes of making the changes, people started changing the page back and a discussion page was opened and even more people got involved – every single one taking the US Government’s revised opinion over centuries of other documented evidence and much contemporary evidence from credible (but not US Government!) sources.

    Ever wondered, like I used to, why the government is so keen to make internet access as widespread as possible? It’s another means to expose people to massive amounts of propaganda, as well as being able to collect data on us.

    —————

    The reason red meat has been portrayed as an enemy is perhaps because it is beneficial to health, e.g. some ‘newspapers’ recently ran a story about the growing number of people feeling tired all the time. One suggestion was that people eat less red meat nowadays and are, as a result, deficient in iron.

    ‘Nature’ reports that Iron treatment normalizes cognitive function in young women.

    Carnosine is also found in red meat – and human brains – and is thought to be useful in staving off dementia, whose sufferers have a low amount of carnosine.

    I’m sure that it suits the PTB to have us as ineffective couch potatoes, lacking in energy to fight them and low in cognitive ability to tackle them in any meaningful way.

    Like

    • I gave up meat about four years ago, solely because I never knew whether I was getting Halal meat or not. Putting my tinfoil hat back on, perhaps the huge amount of Halal meat on the market – unlabelled – is part of the ploy to reduce meat consumption and increase stupidity.

      Like

      • A man of principle (I mean that genuinely)- maybe kooky principles (I assume you were worried about the whole ‘sacrificed to idols’ thing?) but I don’t think I could show the same strength of faith. I thought I was doing well not frequenting pubs after they said they didn’t want my mite.

        Surely you might still eat bacon- it’s pretty much guaranteed to be Halal free?

        Like

        • Yes, it’s the sacrifice angle I’m against. It doesn’t take much strength, although I did really feel like a burger recently. I think that if you draw a (mental) line in the sand, it becomes easily manageable.

          I don’t eat the old Schweinefleisch anyway. (Isaiah 66:15-17)

          I eat Quorn ‘sausage patties’, which are perhaps their most realistic meat alternatives. In a sandwich with fried egg and cheese, you wouldn’t really know it wasn’t meat.

          Like

          • you wouldn’t really know it wasn’t meat.
            You’re talking to former vegan (hell, I was young and horny and all the good looking girls in the mileu were vegans. Tough choice…bacon butty or get laid….) so I know for a fact that the only thing that tastes like meat is meat. FACT!

            Like

            • In the old days, I would have taken the bacon butty every time. Not with brown sauce, though; that’s gastronomic criminality.

              Before I was forced into becoming a pescatarian, I used to buy a chicken cup-a-soup-type-drink which was “suitable for vegetarians” as are prawn ‘Skips’ I think. You can fool most of the people most of the time.

              Like

          • The Old Testament ban on pork, and insistence on getting meat from ruminant animals, was sensible. Pigs and other nonruminants can carry human intestinal diseases because their guts are much the same as ours. However, modern farming and food testing mean we don’t have that problem now.

            Incidentally, cows can carry E. coli O157 but don’t suffer from it. It’s not in the meat though. It’s in the steaming pancakes they leave in the fields.

            Few people eat those…

            Like

            • The scripture refers to the end times, so I can live without pork. And modern farming and supermarkets’ practices wouldn’t fill me with confidence. Either eat the bugs or eat the antibiotics, growth hormones, etc.

              Like

              • Stewart
                Well according to Leviticus 11:9-12 you’re not allowed to eat shellfish, prawns or shark either.
                But then camels, lizards and owls are out of the question too. Not that I’d really miss those options.

                Now I had a thought; there’s been a whole thing about dolphins getting caught and dying in the nets catching tunas. Now as dolphins are unclean as well as their carcass, and the dead dolphin most likely end up touching the tunas, wouldn’t that then also make the tuna unclean?

                Like

                • Hi CStM,

                  I don’t eat shellfish, prawns, shark, eels, etc. either. My tins of tuna say ‘dolphin friendly’ but I expect some still get caught, but please don’t put me off the things I still feel OK about eating!

                  Like

                  • Oh Stewart you may like this Swedish dish my mum makes every once in a while. It’s called smörgåstårta. It’s a layered sandwich cake filled with everything from the sea. My mum makes it with tuna, smoked salmon, eggs (as it’s in a shell) and prawns. But you can leave out the prawns and either keep it as is or add something else.
                    Have you tried marinated herring in curry “dressing” on rye read? It’s one of my absolute favourites. But then I grew up with it.

                    Like

                    • I like the sound of smörgåstårta sans prawns. I like curry, but never tried fish curry. I’d give it a go. I expect haggis might seem unusual (disgusting) to you. When I used to eat it, I tried not to think of what it’s made from. Bet when you’re brought up with odd food, it seems normal, like you say.

                      Like

    • Hi Stewart

      “I have found that, by far, the people most likely to block/unfriend you are politicians.”

      They have thin skins & low tolerance to folk pointing out their inconsistencies, policy flip-flopping & hypocrisy.

      Fortunately, there’s a relatively constant pool of them as their job security is relatively fragile, due to their inconsistencies, policy flip-flopping & hypocrisy!

      Like

      • A shrink recently pointed out to me that, in his opinion, people who go into politics are psychopaths. This would explain why they are obsessed with their image and try to live in a cocoon made of deceit and denial to protect their fragile egos.

        It also explains their lack of empathy and remorse, their love of control. their emotional shallowness and their contempt.

        Like

  9. Very interesting, and sane, article. (I’ve saved it; it’ll come in handy one day!) Just a pity that, as a microbiologist, you don’t have the proper credentials to weigh in on this argument. (Do I really need the /s?)

    About that hay fever graphic: if 95% of hay fever sufferers are allergic to grass pollen, isn’t that a good enough reason to ban grass? Or, better still, tax it?

    Liked by 1 person

    • ” if 95% of hay fever sufferers are allergic to grass pollen, isn’t that a good enough reason to ban grass?”
      Miss Logical Thought shoots, she scores! Indeed, will no one think of the children who like myself as a child used to sneeze a hundred times a day and have permanently inflamed noses and irritated eyes distracting them from their school work and thus resulting in lower grades and RUINED lives!!!
      *is off to sue Qualcast*
      Grass-it’s a child protection issue!

      Like

    • Well, Standing Glans has no credentials to weigh in on smoking or vaping but that hasn’t stopped him 😉

      Destroying all grass would instantly remove the problem of meat from farm animals since that’s what the methane-farting ones live on. Careful who you suggest that too!

      Like

  10. Modern researchers never consider possible side effects of their recommendations. For years they’ve told us to limit the amount of salt that we eat each day for the sake of our heart. No doubt the research was carried out by heart specialists.
    Now US research on other parts of our bodies suggests that the maximum should in fact be a minimum for other parts of our bodies, something with which I fully agree as I get terrible pains in my knee joins if I have insufficient salt.
    Far too many specialists who wear blinkers!

    Like

    • That’s the trouble with specialisiation. You end up with someone who knows absolutely everything within a very narrow range. Okay in itself but when they only know about certain body parts, they try to make the rest of the body comply with the part they know about.

      Rather like a specialist car painter demanding the pistons get a coat of paint…

      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