A new study by ‘scientists’ in Australia claims a warning for middle aged people that they risk embarrassing themselves through drinking is more effective at improving behaviour than highlighting the health implications.
The report claims that adults aged between 30 and 65 have only “minor” concerns about the health effects of alcohol. The truth of this can easily be observed as, in spite of frequent scaremongering campaigns by governments and their tame ‘scientists’ a huge number of people who drink more than the ridiculous recommended limits advised by governments are living happily and healthily to a ripe old age.
The study, carried out in Australia, not a country noted for abstemiousness, by the University of Adelaide, analysed interviewee’s responses about alcohol consumption from 13 previous papers, finding that for the middle-aged people without an existing drinking problem, the “principal barrier to reductions in alcohol consumption is not the lack of information about health risks”.
The report was vague about what the principal barrier to reducing alcohol consumption actually is, probably because it relates to people having completely lost confidence in ‘scientists’ and never having trusted government anyway. Thus the punters do not have much dificulty working out that all these scare stories floated by ‘scientists’ are nothing more than a scam to justify imposing the kind of punitive tax levels on alcohol as have failed to stop about 30% of people from smoking.
People simply do not like government pokenoses telling them what they can and can’t do. Government meddling in private lives only ever results in an enormous, catastrophic clusterfuck.
The Austrialian researchers suggest, (extremely idiotically, even by the idiotic standards of ‘scientists’) public health campaigns to reduce alcohol consumption could be more effective if they focus on the risk of behaving inappropriately after drinking too much, although, predictably, no definite examples of what kind of inappropriate behaviour they mean. An enthusiastic rendition of My Way at a Karaoke night maybe?
Acceptable drinking was classed as that which “was appropriate to one’s age or stage of life”, allowed the group to still meet their responsibilities and adhered to social norms, they found. Again that is just sanctimonious drivel. What responsibilities? What social norms? Science is supposed to be about precision, not about vague platitudes.
The report stated: “The drinkers in these studies were aware of public health messages, but drew upon alternative narratives to re-frame their behaviours in ways that minimised or dismissed personal risk. Health was either described as a minor concern or not considered at all.”
Lead researcher Emma Muhlack said: “It is surprising that health does not strongly factor in the way that this group thinks about their drinking. Well Emma, let Boggart Blog help you out, human beings are individual. Pseudo – science like your report seems to start from the assumption that we are all stereotypes who have no free will and are quite incapable of making our own decisions.
“We knew very little about the decision-making processes that go into the alcohol consumption of middle-age drinkers. The results from this review help us to better understand how drinking alcohol fits into their everyday lives and which factors may need to be taken into consideration when attempting to reduce alcohol consumption in this group.” Ms. Muhlack added.
The fact is that just as people have their own limits on how drunk they want to get, they have their own standards on behaviour, so a public health campaign, no matter what kind of behaviours it targets, is unlikely to engage the attention of more than a very small percentage of the target group. It has been known for example, since I was studying sociology fifty years ago, that middle aged people are less susceptible to peer pressure than they young.
The researchers suggest that campaigns which focus on failing to meet responsibilities because of alcohol and the possible loss of respect may be more effective than health messages.
Perhaps the researchers are thinking of a follow up report suggesting using targeted ads on social media. But again, middle aged people are less likely to be heavily addicted to social media than millennials, and also social media advertising is notoriously ineffective.
Millie Tant – VIZ comic’s stereotypical feminist, a hear full of polyandry and a head full of lard.
The first story of the week from The Daily Stirrer’s Politically Correct Insanities desk concerns Germund Hesslow, a university professor in Sweden (Where else? OK, could be California, but this is European insanity.) Hesslow, who works in neurophysiology at Lund University, has offended the wankerati by suggesting during one of his lectures there are biological differences between men and women. (Shock! Horror!)
During a lecture on ‘Heritage and Environment’ at the respected academic institution, Hesslow make the mistake of citing empirical research which supports an idea that is deeply offensive to the chicks with dicks, snip and tuck and strappadiktomy brigade, that there are actually differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and therefore genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone”.
A student complained that Hesslow’s comments were at odds with the Swedish “value base” — a concept which requires all schools in Sweden to adhere to a common ethical policy, which includes upholding values like egalitarianism, individual freedom, equality of the sexes and the lunatic notion that whether you are a man or a woman depends of ‘feelings’ rather that whether you have a willie or a minge.
In an interview with an internet radio station, Hesslow said some students, “for ideological reasons,” are offended by certain scientific facts about the very well understood biological differences between men and women. He said that the comments which prompted the complaint were not an integral part of his course material, but were answers to students’ questions during the course of the lecture. Sounds like some of the self righteous little shits set out to trap him.
“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.
Hesslow was reprimanded by the chairman of the overseeing board for medical education, after a female student complained that the professor had expressed his “personal anti-feminist agenda,” Academic Rights Watch reported.
Now this blog has long believed universirt professors are the dimmest creatures on the planet, and this kind of conforms it. anyone with any sense would have kicked the stupid bitch off the course. Obviously she is totally unsuited to a career in healthcare if she thinks stating well documented facts is anti feminists. It’s well know of course that feminists have a very tenuous grip on reality but indulging their fantasies is not going to help them.
The university has asked Hesslow to “distance” himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that whether transsexuality is a sexual orientation is “a matter of definition”. The professor refused to back away from the comments, saying that he had “done enough” already to “explain and defend” his choice of words. GO PROF.
According to the webite Space Weather the sun has been void of sunspots for more than half of the year as scientists believe the Earth could be in for a spell of extreme cold with winters more harsh than usual and summers delivering poor harvests.
This is nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide emissions or human activity, it’s about that huge firey ball in the sky that climate scientists like to ignore even though it is known to have a significant effect on the planet’s climatic conditions.
Observers report the sun has been free of sunspots for a total of 133 days this year. With only 241 days of 2018 passing, that means the sun has been blank for the majority of the year. Experts warn this is a sign that the solar minimum is on its way.
Website Space Weather for 30 August, 2018 (click link above and enter required date in dialog box, top right of home page for archive,) says: “The sun is spotless again. For the 133rd day this year, the face of the sun is blank.
“To find a year with fewer sunspots, you have to go back to 2009 when the sun was experiencing the deepest solar minimum in a century.“Solar minimum has returned, bringing extra cosmic rays, long-lasting holes in the sun’s atmosphere, and strangely pink auroras.”The sun follows cycles of roughly 11 years where it reaches a solar maximum and then a solar minimum. During a solar maximum, the sun gives off more heat and is littered with sunspots. Less heat in a solar minimum is due to a decrease in magnetic waves.The sun was not expected to head into a solar minimum until around 2020, but it appears to be heading in early which could prove to be bad news. The last time there was a prolonged solar minimum, it led to a ‘mini ice-age’, scientifically known as the Maunder minimum – which lasted for 70 years.
The Maunder minimum, which saw seven decades of freezing weather, began in 1645 and lasted through to 1715, and happened when sunspots were exceedingly rare. During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees Celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages.
Every time during the past twenty years when there has been a spell of unusually hot weather, the Global Warming fanatics have come crawling out from under the stones they hope wil protect them from the rampant sun’s merciless rays, screaming, “We told you so, you horrible climate deniers, the earth is being fried because you insist on driving cars, heating your homes, cooking you food and earning a living. And while they blether incoherently and unscientifically about carbon dioxide and human activity they continue to ignore history. The extreme heat in Europe this year is part of well (if unusually documented) irregular cycle.
Swings from extreme heat to extreme cold have been going on throughout recorded history. They have been recorded by medieval monks, renaissance era scholars, enlightenment era scientists and since the medieval era at least, by people with club hammers and stone chisels. One of the most unusual but irrefutable sets of historical evidence we have, and which is ignored by climate change scaremongers are known as the Hunger Stones.
Pictured above is a Hunger Stone from 1616 which has been exposed by the low level of water in the Elbe River.
Such events have been recorded when drought has resulted in the low level of water in the Elbe river.
The above scene is at Decin, in the Czech Republic. Throughout the centuries, there have been cycles of extreme heat followed by extreme cold (e.g. so called the mini ice age, when the River Thames in London froze each winter for several years and Londoners held ‘frost fairs’ on the ice). Such fairs were also common in Europe where continental weather effcts generally make the winters colder than Britain’s
The hot, dry weather in Europe has, for the recorded time in over a century, exposed the Hunger Stones that have been used for centuries to commemorate historic droughts which warn of their consequences when you see these stones again.It might be unwise to infer anything from this gap, given Europe’s political history in the twentieth centure it’s possible droughts occurred at times when people in Germany and central Europe faced bigger worries than drought.
The Hunger Stones are visible this year in the Elbe a major river which rises in the Czech Republic and flows west through Germany. There are more than a dozen Hunger Stones that serve as records of previous droughts establishing that the extreme heat and drought of this year is by no means unique to history.
The various Hunger Stones record droughts droughts that resulted in crop failure and famine on the stones dated 1417, 1616, 1707, 1746, 1790, 1800, 1811, 1830, 1842, 1868, 1892, and 1893, which covers a period of 476 years, which would take us from the end of the ‘medieval warm period’ to the end of the nineteenth century.You may remember in one of the most notorious global warming frauds, Professor Michael Mann, creator of the now ridiculed ‘hockey stick graph’ erased the medieval warm period from history.
Basing his calculations on tree ring data from bog oaks, tree trunks preserved in peat bogs, which he claimed showed no unusual climate trends in the medieval warm period (which lasted several hundred years,) because the tree rings in preserved oaks pulled from north European bogs showed average or less than average growth. Mann only succeeded in proving he is either dishonest or stupid. Cool weather is not the only cause of poor growth rates as any gardener or a novice biology student could tell you. Hot, dry weather will adversely affect growth as will any unusually dry period. Trees and plants need carbon dioxide, oxygen, temeratures in the right range, and water to grow.
Some scientific types have already noted that if we look at the above drought data it produces a gap average of 39.6 years.This only proves that scientists, like Michael Mann are idiots and wankers. A quick glance at the data would show there’s no regular pattern there. An intelligent person would immediately understand this is not a scientific record and the data is probably incomplete.
It is worth noting that two drought years used to obtain that average, 1892 and 1893 are back-to-back. It’s highly unlikely there were two separate droughts, it probable there was ab extended dry period. In fact, additional evidence that is being ignored by the Global Warming crowd who seem intent upon leading society to its doom by ignoring the past entirely and persuading governments we must suck every molecule of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (thus making the existence on Earth of carbon based life – forms – i.e. everything including us,) impossible.
In a case that could halt the development of GM crops around the world, and thus the push by a few global corporations to gain control of the food supply, a court San Francisco this week awarded $289 million in damages to a former school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, whose lawyers claimed Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller gave him terminal cancer. The award consists of $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.
Johnson’s trial was fast-tracked due to the severe state of his non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system he says was triggered by Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate based herbicide that he was a=obliged by his job to use up to 30 times per year. His doctors didn’t think he’d live to live to see the verdict.
Johnson told the court that he had been involved in two accidents during his work in which he was soaked with the herbicide. The first of these occurred in 2012. Two years later, the 46-year-old father of two was diagnosed with lymphoma – which has since covered as much as 80% of his body in lesions.
Monsanto says it will appeal the verdict.
“Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews — and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world — support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement.
Monsanto is now a subsidiary of Germany’s Bayer AG, which closed on its $66 billion purchase of the agrochemical company in June.
On Tuesday, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner urged jurors to hold Monsanto liable and slap them with a verdict that would “actually change the world” – after arguing that Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s risks of cancer, but decided to ignore and bury the information.
According to a report in The Guardian, Johnson’s lawsuit against is the first such case against Monsanto to complete the full trial process over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer. Thousands have made similar legal claims across the United States. Many of these are still tied up in the labyrinthine procedures of the American justice system and many other complainants have either run out of money or simply given up.
The Johnson case focused on the chemical glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974. The company began by presenting it as a “technological breakthrough” that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment. –SHTFplan.com
In September, 2017 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that glyphosates were not likely carcinogenic to humans, based on a decades-long study. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s cancer arm issued an opposite statement – warning that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Johnson’s case is not part of the consolidated proceedings in Missouri, Delaware or California state court, where some 2,000 similar cases are pending. It’s also separate from a federal multidistrict litigation waiting to be heard by US District Judge Vance Chabria of San Francisco – who allowed hundreds of Roundup lawsuits to proceed to trial after ruling that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear the cases despite calling a plaintiff’s expert opinions “shaky.”
Documents released in August of 2017 led to questions over Monsanto’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.
As the New York Times commented last year, leaked internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.
These documents detail the meaures to which the Monsanto was willing to resport in order to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.
A similar issue appeared in academic research. A biologist involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”
The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe. In the bigger picture these documents will throw into doubt legal judgements in many other cases, as they strongly suggest Monsanto have misled the courts in their evidence.
Lancet, the journal of British medical professionals has published a completely innacurate editorial which falsely claims seven million deaths linked to air pollution were caused by “climate change.”
“The effects of climate change are inextricably entwined with health,” the May 12 editorial begins, “ranging from the WHO estimate of 7 million deaths from breathing polluted air indoors and outdoors.” The editorial then goes on to list a series of other alleged harmful effects of climate change, none of which are backed by hard evidence.
The main statement is patently false, and the Lancet editors must surely know that.
The World Health Organization (WHO) report to which the editorial refers makes no mention of climate change and speaks only of the adverse health effects of breathing polluted air, which is a different thing altogether.
According to the WHO report, “around 7 million people die every year from exposure to fine particles in polluted air that penetrate deep into the lungs and cardiovascular system, causing diseases including stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and respiratory infections, including pneumonia.”
All of these harmful substances which have potentially fatal consequences are causes by “exposure to fine particles in polluted air” and not by global warming.
In its infographic on the causes of air pollution, the WHO lists six sources of dangerous fine particulate matter, none of which is related to climate change, a phenomenon due entirely to the release of carbon dioxide from human activity according to the environmentalist lobby. The six sources of air pollution are industry and energy supply, dust, agricultural practices, transport, waste management, and household energy.
Among the six solutions proposed by WHO for combatting air pollution, not one of them touches on carbon dioxide emissions, for the simple reason that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not harmful to human health. Unlike pollutants, carbon dioxide is odorless, colorless, and most importantly, non-toxic. In fact the trace gas is essential to life, being the fuel used by the photosynthesis process to grown plant matter.
The report notes that deaths linked to air pollution occur mainly in third-world countries where a majority of the population “do not have access to clean cooking fuels and technologies in their homes.” The article in Lancet ignores that essential point and shamelessly links lethal air pollution to global warming, without bothering to attempt to establish a real connection between the two.
It then goes on to speak of how the horrible effects of air pollution can be averted by implementing measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from industrial, domestic and agricultural activity, which, again, is complete bollocks.
The overtly political editorial seeks to persuade a naïve public to enact policy to reduce CO2 emissions by making them think that this will curb deadly air pollution, which it will not. It will however appease the medical professions’ paymasters in politics and the Big Pharma corporations.
Climate Lies (omnibus)
Climate change and the missing refugees
Trump Announces US To Quit The Paris Climate Accord
German Scientist Confims Climate Change Ia A Politically Motivated Scam
Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’ – Dutch Scientific Study
As the quest for everlasting life appears to be something these science nuts believe could offer great advances for humanity rather than being inevitably catastrophic (imagine if no one died and no one was born, or worse if no one died and the population kept growing , what are the key concerns raised by these experiments?
Nottingham Trent University ethics researcher Benjamin Curtis says ending up as a disembodied brain is likely to be a “living hell.” Writing in The Conversation he suggested that living in total isolation with no external stimuli and without any actual contact with reality could be a fate worse than death.
“Some have argued that even with a fully functional body, immortality would be tedious. With absolutely no contact with external reality, it might just be a living hell,” Curtis has written.
In the Yale University experiments, led by neuroscientist Nenad Sestan, the pigs did not regain consciousness but Sestan acknowledged that restoring awareness is a possibility and that the technique could work on humans, keeping the brain alive indefinitely. We should not forget however, that in a prize winning experiment a few years ago, neuroscientists discovered meaningful brain activity in a dead fish. Now finding meaningful brain activity in the brain of a live fish might be miraculous, but finding it in a dead fish only proves the nerds don’t know much about how atoms work.
Speaking to RT.com Curtis explained (rather obviously to those of us who rely on common sense,) that the brain is highly integrated with the rest of the body in both humans and animals. It is constantly receiving and sending signals from and to it. “We have no idea what experiences would occur within a disembodied brain. But those experiences may well be deeply disturbing,” he said.
But what is a brain without a body to host it? Renowned neuroscientist Antonio Damasio says without a constant “feedback loop” between brain and body, ordinary experiences and thought are simply not possible. I remember being told in 1997, while in rehab, recovering 9somwhat surprisingly) from a massive brain haemorr”hage, that “We doctors are only now starting to understand that the brain and the mind are very different things.
Damasio’s view was echoed by Dr. Evan Thompson, philosophy professor at the University of British Columbia. Thompson told RT.com, “Consciousness and mind function are dependent on the brain being functionally integrated with the rest of the body.
In other words, it’s not possible for a disembodied brain to house a normal mind. “The brain and body are in constant electrochemical communication with each other with multiple and dense feedback loops. Take that away, and mental function isn’t likely to be possible,” he said.
Curtis expresses the opinion that the promise of eternal life is not worth the risk of subjecting a disembodied but conscious human brain to “an existence of hellish tedium, or to the mental torture of inescapable madness.”
He said that even if disembodied brains did function more or less as they do now they will still be receiving no input from the outside world whatsoever. “There would be no sights, smells, sounds, or tactile feelings at all. Just an enduring inescapable emptiness,” he said to RT.com.
“I suppose this might be OK for a short while, but for any length of time I doubt any ordinary person would be able to cope.”
“One could perhaps tell oneself stories, or write poems in one’s mind, but with no-one to communicate them to, I imagine this would be cold comfort. In eternity, one would most likely end up repeating the same kinds of thoughts over and over to oneself, a body-less Sisyphus with no way to bring an end to the futility and meaningless of your situation.”
The quest for immortality is going in differirections that take it beyond the the ‘brain in a jar,’ concept however, for some the ultimate goal of preserving their brain is at eternal life. Presumably they hope to achieve this by constantly patching us up with second hand parts from a human scapyard, the way old cars have been patched up with spares drom a scrapyard.
In March, startup company Nectome revealed it is aiming to develop technology that could preserve the brain while keeping all memories in tact and then upload these to a server so a person can experience eternal digital life. The team has already managed to fully preserve a rabbit and pig brain.
Meanwhile, Italian surgeon Sergio Canavero is determined to complete the world’s first live human head transplant. Last last year, he claims, he completed the world’s first such operation between two corpses.
A 30-year-old Russian man who suffers from Werdnig-Hoffmann disease put himself forward as a volunteer for the transplant in 2015, prompting ethical concerns from the wider scientific community.
“I would not wish this on anyone,”said Dr. Hunt Batjer, former president of the American Association for Neurological Surgeons. “I would not allow anyone to do it to me as there are a lot of things worse than death.”
In their paper‘Operation Frankenstein: Ethical reflections of human head transplantation,’ Joshua Cuoco and John R. Davy from the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine argued the procedure could cause substantial psychological difficulty and result in a dramatic alteration of a person’s personality and memories.
“The procedure of human head transplantation dangerously presupposes that transplanting an individual’s head will also transplant an individual’s mind including consciousness, personality, and memories.”
“On the contrary, cognitive sciences have suggested that human cognition does not solely originate within the brain parenchyma; rather, humans exhibit an embodied cognition where our body participates in the formation of self,” the scientists warned.
Let’s talk ethics
Neuroscientists at the fore of this experimental research are calling for discussion around the ethics of their work but argued that these difficult questions should not halt their progress.
In an essay published in Nature, a group of researchers, including Sestan, noted advancements in the field mean tough conversations need to take place: “As brain surrogates become larger and more sophisticated, the possibility of them having capabilities akin to human sentience might become less remote.”
For many on social media the prospect of this Black Mirror-esque concept becoming a reality has left them more than a little unsettled.
A research study led by the University of Edinburgh explored the science behind the biological processes that drive the creation of our memories
The article collapsed when I encountered the abuse of the word science in the above sentence. Biologoy is a natural science, i.e. the study of natural phenomena related to living organisms so in fact the biological processes underlie the science rather that the science driving the biological processes.