I am looking to take out a health insurance policy for me and Mrs Bucko. I dread the day I get a serious illness and have to rely on the NHS to fix me. Also, I keep saying the government has nothing to offer that I would want. Without private medical, this will never be completely true.
Earlier this evening I spoke to a sales guy. He went through all the policy details then asked if I had any questions.
I gave him my concerns and inquiries, then said, "Me and Mrs Bucko are both smokers. These days we are seen as evil people who will die a premature and horrible death at great expense to whoever has to care for us. You have not mentioned smoking. Why not?"
I just wanted to be sure there was no small print I had missed that said they won't pay for smoking related illnesses.
His response was both surprising an reassuring.
He said it's a health insurance policy, not a life insurance policy. They consider smoking to be a lifestyle choice and won't penalise us for it.
He then went on to say, in their experience a person who lives a healthy life and goes jogging every morning, is as likely to die from a heart attack at fifty, as a smoker who eats kebabs every day is likely to die at eighty of old age.
I'm sure this is not news to all you bloggers out ther who already have private medical insurance, but it took me by a bit of surprise.
After all, insurance is a risk business. Young drivers have to pay more car insurance than experienced drivers because they are percieved to be a greater risk, even if they are very sensible drivers. People with no home security pay more home insurance than people with a burglar alarm, even though burglar alarms are mostly ignored when they go off.
Ergo, you would think that people who put their health at risk would pay more health insurance. But the people that would actually have to pay for mine and Mrs Buckos cancer treatment, should we get it, do not consider us to be a risk.
Every day, as smokers, we get the righteous complaining that their tax pays for our treatment; That smokers are a burdon on the NHS; that even treatment should be denied to us smokers, yet the private health companies, people who must know what they are talking about do not see it that way.
So I have this to say to the anti smokers:
1) You are talking utter bollocks
2) I'm now paying for my own treatment anyway, so fuck off.
3) fuck off
4) No, really, fuck off.
Have a nice Friday evening.
Hitler taken into care in U.S.
US court denies parents custody of Hitler and sisters
Excuse me? WTFF? Etc.
Seriously, what?
Wow. I mean I'm all for freedom of speach / thought etc. Even if people have really, really wierd beliefs, but fuck me. You don't give your kids names like that. They will get ripped to shit at school.
*boggle*
Excuse me? WTFF? Etc.
Adolf Hitler Campbell, 4, and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation, 3, and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie, 2, were taken from their New Jersey home in 2009.
The case first came to public attention in December 2008 after a shop refused to decorate a birthday cake for Adolf.
Seriously, what?
But on Thursday, the appeals panel determined that social workers had proved the need for protective services for the three children.
The panel found that the parents, who both suffer from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities, had "recklessly created a risk of serious injury to their children by failing to protect the children from harm and failing to acknowledge and treat their disabilities".
The judges also noted that Deborah Campbell had recently passed a letter to a neighbour saying her husband had threatened "to have me killed or kill me himself".
The children's father, Heath Campbell, told the Associated Press last year that he believed they were taken into foster care because of their names.
He also alleged that the authorities had relied on unproven accusations made by a neighbour and his ex-wife.
Wow. I mean I'm all for freedom of speach / thought etc. Even if people have really, really wierd beliefs, but fuck me. You don't give your kids names like that. They will get ripped to shit at school.
*boggle*
When boredom and Google collide
In a desperate attempt to find something, anything to blog about, I typed the search "should be banned" in Google.
This little nugget popped up:
HAVE YOUR SAY: Should 4x4 cars be banned in towns?
It seems boredom and lack of something to write has gripped the "News Shopper" too.
The eight responses are quite good:
Search as I might, I cant find this blog. I was looking forward to reading it too.
And a shameless plug:
I've got to ask. How long does it take to charge a 4x4 and how far down the street will a full charge get you? (I am assuming it's wireless)
This is pants journalism at best. Nothing to write so attempt to stir up the righteous into a frenzy. We have enough interfering busybodies with their own agendas, trying to chip away at peoples liberty. We don't need rubbish local rags fuelling the fire, simply in a crappy attempt to sell more papers.
Come to think of it, this is pants blogging. I'll go and do some work now.......
This little nugget popped up:
HAVE YOUR SAY: Should 4x4 cars be banned in towns?
This week's News Shopper Thursday Issue discussion asks whether off-road vehicles should be banned on urban roads. Have your say and add your comments below.
The Thursday Issue is very simple. Each week we put a controversial question or suggestion to you, and ask if you agree or disagree with it.
Here is this week's:
There should be a ban on 4x4 off-road type vehicles in built-up areas. They are too big, too dangerous to other road users and too gas-guzzling, but above all they look stupid travelling around without a spec of mud on their bodywork.
It seems boredom and lack of something to write has gripped the "News Shopper" too.
The eight responses are quite good:
Make Life, In your heart says...
1:22pm Thu 5 Aug 10
good argument, lets ban them because they look stupid!! How about we ban this Rant because it asks stupid questions? Why should 4x4's be banned from built up areas? If people have enough money to buy one/run one then why shouldn't they drive it where ever they like.
Erastus, Bexley says...
2:53pm Thu 5 Aug 10
I don't think ALL 4x4s should be banned in towns - only those driven by women. Women just can't handle large cars because they lack the spatial awareness that comes naturally to men.
You can read all about women drivers in my latest blog in 'Opinion & Blogs': 'WOMEN DRIVERS: The curse of mankind'.
Search as I might, I cant find this blog. I was looking forward to reading it too.
And a shameless plug:
thegreenmarket, Montreal says...
3:36pm Thu 5 Aug 10
A 4x4 is a problem when it relies on a combustion engine. However, new greener vehicles can help solve the problem. Check out the new fully electric 4x4 from Liberty Energy.
I've got to ask. How long does it take to charge a 4x4 and how far down the street will a full charge get you? (I am assuming it's wireless)
This is pants journalism at best. Nothing to write so attempt to stir up the righteous into a frenzy. We have enough interfering busybodies with their own agendas, trying to chip away at peoples liberty. We don't need rubbish local rags fuelling the fire, simply in a crappy attempt to sell more papers.
Come to think of it, this is pants blogging. I'll go and do some work now.......
The dangers of general apathy
I created a post earlier entitled Ideas For More Draconian Laws (From Around The World).
It wasn't a particularly intelligent or in depth piece, just something a bit light hearted, however one of the comments made me think.
Longrider told me not to give them ideas, and I replied:
It was Julia's response that got the grey matter working:
So we are losing the battle because most people either don't care or side with the opposition. My experience leads me to believe that those who don't care and those who collude all come from the same camp. The masses tend to be deeply rooted in apathy. If and when those roots grow into something more, they grow into righteousness and interference.
This, I think, comes from a general laziness of thought and lack of understanding.
If you ask any person what their beliefs are on a particular subject, they will always give you an opinion. They will never say, I don't know, I've never thought about it. But the truth is, they have never thought about it. When they offer an opinion they are just trotting something out that they have picked up from some shelf. Off the shelf opinions run through the very veins of society. Weather you vote Red, Blue or Yellow because your parents did or weather you call yourself a Marxist or Muslim, you are expressing an opinion or belief that was created by someone else for your consumption and regurgitation. It's the easy way for someone to express an opinion; to say something about themselves without going to the trouble of actually thinking about it. All these off the shelf opinions can easily be picked apart by someone who has given time to think seriously about the issue in question.
A good example is the "murder" debate.
What is your opinion on murder?
Its wrong and we shouldn't do it.
What, never?
No. All human life is sacred and should be protected
What if you could have murdered Hitler/Stalin when he was a teenager?
Erm...Erm
To have a real opinion / moral stance on a subject, it takes time and thought.
Empathy for your fellow human is another favourite of mine. People think they should feel sorry for those worse off than them. That's how appeals work. Thousands are dying in floods in Pakistan. Please feel sorry for these people, and give generously. I have thought long and hard about disasters in far reaching countries and you know what my conclusion is? I don't care. That's right. I don't care. I don't and never will know these people. They don't know me and they dint care about me. Countless people die horrible deaths every day all over the world. If you spoke as fast as possible, you would never even be able to list their first names. That's why I don't care. The only suffering and dying people you hear about are those that the media decides to tell us about. I will not be told by the media, what I should care about. I care about my family and friends.
Anyway, I digress. The media is another story.
People don't think about their opinions, thay take them off the shelf. That's how an appeal for "something to be done about XXXX" can be so successful. The person who begins the appeal is offering a new off the shelf opinion to whoever would chose to take it.
And why would they choose to take it? What is in it for them?
Go to a pub at nine o'clock on a Saturday night and have a look around. What do you see. Someone singing on the Karaoke, some people clapping for them, etc. Its pretty much what you see is what you get. There is no depth to these people. You can easily judge them on a glance. None of them have any ambitions or any real achievable dreams. They probably dream of winning the lottery and know what they would spend the money on, but they have no real tangible dreams. They drift through their lives, never in control, never making any proper decisions. They leave school, do something at college, get a job or go on the dole, have a few kids and get pissed at weekend.
They care more for Jeremy Kyle and Big Brother than they do for real political and social issues that affect their lives.
They have no power. They have no power over their own lives and no influence over the lives of others. And that's what they are looking for. They are always chasing this illusory feeling of power. That's where they fall down. There are two types of personal power. The illusory type and the real type. Illusory power is very easy to get. Its usually created by someone else and handed to you if you want it. It gives you a feeling of comfort and safety. It doesn't require effort on your part but because it is only illusory it can't change your life.
If you are frightened of dying you may choose to become a Christian. This may remove your fear but you will still die and there will be no afterlife.
If you feel sad at the loss of a loved one you may campaign to stop whatever happened to them being repeated. It won't bring them back and your meddling will probably create more harm in the long run.
If you are poor, you may become a socialist. You will no longer feel guilt at your lack of success as you will have passed the blame onto the successful. Still, you will never be well off yourself.
Real power is very hard to get. This comes from within. You have to create it yourself as it cannot be created by others. It is not comfortable and is sometimes quite scary. However, once you get it, it can radically change your life for the better.
If you are scared of dying, you don't turn to religion, you strive to make the most of the short life that you have.
If you are sad at the loss of a loved one, you don't transfer your sadness to others by meddling, you face it head on and start to deal with it.
If you are poor, you take steps to improve your life. You work harder and spend less. You educate yourself.
This search for illusory power leads people to buy ever bigger tellys and sofas. To take out more and more credit. And to join pressure groups. That's where the biggest feeling of power lies. The power to control others. The power to ban things you don't agree with or that you don't like others doing. The power to make others believe you are a good person, selflessly acting for a good cause. Altruistically helping your fellow man.
Those of us who have seriously thought through our moral position and our beliefs would never consider joining a pressure group and calling for bans and restrictions.
We can see the bigger picture of our actions. We can see the problems that arise from forcing people to wear helmets on bikes, or to smoke outside, or to give up their guns etc etc ad infinitum.
Those majority don't have a bigger picture, they have a little world.
So apathy breeds the righteous and interfering of our society, and they are many more of them than there are of us. It is so much easier to pick an off the shelf opinion. It so much easier to blame others for your own failings and to get your feeling of power by interfering in the lives of others rather than improving your own lot.
The libertarians among us have taken the necessary steps to pull ourselves out of this apathy, avoid the easy route and take real action to empower our lives.
That's the hard way. That's why so few do it. That's why the battle against state intrusion is being lost.
It wasn't a particularly intelligent or in depth piece, just something a bit light hearted, however one of the comments made me think.
Longrider told me not to give them ideas, and I replied:
The way I see it, we are fighting a losing battle against state intrusion. Mainly because most of the population don't give a shit.
Perhaps we should push for loads of new crap until the population finally breaks.
(just kidding)
It was Julia's response that got the grey matter working:
"Mainly because most of the population don't give a shit."
Or actively collude in it - see all those 'something must be done about XXXX!' campaigns.
So we are losing the battle because most people either don't care or side with the opposition. My experience leads me to believe that those who don't care and those who collude all come from the same camp. The masses tend to be deeply rooted in apathy. If and when those roots grow into something more, they grow into righteousness and interference.
This, I think, comes from a general laziness of thought and lack of understanding.
If you ask any person what their beliefs are on a particular subject, they will always give you an opinion. They will never say, I don't know, I've never thought about it. But the truth is, they have never thought about it. When they offer an opinion they are just trotting something out that they have picked up from some shelf. Off the shelf opinions run through the very veins of society. Weather you vote Red, Blue or Yellow because your parents did or weather you call yourself a Marxist or Muslim, you are expressing an opinion or belief that was created by someone else for your consumption and regurgitation. It's the easy way for someone to express an opinion; to say something about themselves without going to the trouble of actually thinking about it. All these off the shelf opinions can easily be picked apart by someone who has given time to think seriously about the issue in question.
A good example is the "murder" debate.
What is your opinion on murder?
Its wrong and we shouldn't do it.
What, never?
No. All human life is sacred and should be protected
What if you could have murdered Hitler/Stalin when he was a teenager?
Erm...Erm
To have a real opinion / moral stance on a subject, it takes time and thought.
Empathy for your fellow human is another favourite of mine. People think they should feel sorry for those worse off than them. That's how appeals work. Thousands are dying in floods in Pakistan. Please feel sorry for these people, and give generously. I have thought long and hard about disasters in far reaching countries and you know what my conclusion is? I don't care. That's right. I don't care. I don't and never will know these people. They don't know me and they dint care about me. Countless people die horrible deaths every day all over the world. If you spoke as fast as possible, you would never even be able to list their first names. That's why I don't care. The only suffering and dying people you hear about are those that the media decides to tell us about. I will not be told by the media, what I should care about. I care about my family and friends.
Anyway, I digress. The media is another story.
People don't think about their opinions, thay take them off the shelf. That's how an appeal for "something to be done about XXXX" can be so successful. The person who begins the appeal is offering a new off the shelf opinion to whoever would chose to take it.
And why would they choose to take it? What is in it for them?
Go to a pub at nine o'clock on a Saturday night and have a look around. What do you see. Someone singing on the Karaoke, some people clapping for them, etc. Its pretty much what you see is what you get. There is no depth to these people. You can easily judge them on a glance. None of them have any ambitions or any real achievable dreams. They probably dream of winning the lottery and know what they would spend the money on, but they have no real tangible dreams. They drift through their lives, never in control, never making any proper decisions. They leave school, do something at college, get a job or go on the dole, have a few kids and get pissed at weekend.
They care more for Jeremy Kyle and Big Brother than they do for real political and social issues that affect their lives.
They have no power. They have no power over their own lives and no influence over the lives of others. And that's what they are looking for. They are always chasing this illusory feeling of power. That's where they fall down. There are two types of personal power. The illusory type and the real type. Illusory power is very easy to get. Its usually created by someone else and handed to you if you want it. It gives you a feeling of comfort and safety. It doesn't require effort on your part but because it is only illusory it can't change your life.
If you are frightened of dying you may choose to become a Christian. This may remove your fear but you will still die and there will be no afterlife.
If you feel sad at the loss of a loved one you may campaign to stop whatever happened to them being repeated. It won't bring them back and your meddling will probably create more harm in the long run.
If you are poor, you may become a socialist. You will no longer feel guilt at your lack of success as you will have passed the blame onto the successful. Still, you will never be well off yourself.
Real power is very hard to get. This comes from within. You have to create it yourself as it cannot be created by others. It is not comfortable and is sometimes quite scary. However, once you get it, it can radically change your life for the better.
If you are scared of dying, you don't turn to religion, you strive to make the most of the short life that you have.
If you are sad at the loss of a loved one, you don't transfer your sadness to others by meddling, you face it head on and start to deal with it.
If you are poor, you take steps to improve your life. You work harder and spend less. You educate yourself.
This search for illusory power leads people to buy ever bigger tellys and sofas. To take out more and more credit. And to join pressure groups. That's where the biggest feeling of power lies. The power to control others. The power to ban things you don't agree with or that you don't like others doing. The power to make others believe you are a good person, selflessly acting for a good cause. Altruistically helping your fellow man.
Those of us who have seriously thought through our moral position and our beliefs would never consider joining a pressure group and calling for bans and restrictions.
We can see the bigger picture of our actions. We can see the problems that arise from forcing people to wear helmets on bikes, or to smoke outside, or to give up their guns etc etc ad infinitum.
Those majority don't have a bigger picture, they have a little world.
So apathy breeds the righteous and interfering of our society, and they are many more of them than there are of us. It is so much easier to pick an off the shelf opinion. It so much easier to blame others for your own failings and to get your feeling of power by interfering in the lives of others rather than improving your own lot.
The libertarians among us have taken the necessary steps to pull ourselves out of this apathy, avoid the easy route and take real action to empower our lives.
That's the hard way. That's why so few do it. That's why the battle against state intrusion is being lost.
Foreign aid
President Obama has just pledged millions in aid to Ireland, following the tragedy of Hurricane Higgins.
Ideas for more draconian laws (From around the world)
Israel
Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew
It seems an Arab man told a Jewish woman that he was a Jew in order to get into her knickers. Now he has been sentanced to eighteen months in prison for rape.
We've all told the odd porkie for nookie's sake. I'll call you in the morning, You're not fat, I'm not married, everyone is doing it like this, etc....
Fortunately we don't live in Isreal.
However the villification of men continues with vigour in England. The feninist movement is always looking for new and inventive ways to make us all out as pedos and rapists. Maybe this is just the logical next step.
"I only made love to him because he said he would call me...." He didn't, so its rape.
There is a reverse side to this. "I only had sex with her because I thought she was good looking." By morning this turned out to be very untrue.
(NOTE: Women make love, men have sex)
So come on youbutch lezzas feminists, you're lagging way behind Isreal. Catch up!.
Russia
Ten days jail for Russian rapper who mocked police
This is a good one. The British Police are pretty much a laughing stock these days. Maybe their only recourse is to make mocking them a criminal offence.
I spend half my life taking the piss out of PCSO's. By rights they should have thrown away the key by now. Come on ACPO. New law required. Mock a copper, go to prison.
Although, maybe if they didn't keep doing things like this and this we might not have so much reason to ROFPMSL.
Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew
It seems an Arab man told a Jewish woman that he was a Jew in order to get into her knickers. Now he has been sentanced to eighteen months in prison for rape.
A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with a woman who had believed him to be a fellow Jew.
Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.
We've all told the odd porkie for nookie's sake. I'll call you in the morning, You're not fat, I'm not married, everyone is doing it like this, etc....
Fortunately we don't live in Isreal.
However the villification of men continues with vigour in England. The feninist movement is always looking for new and inventive ways to make us all out as pedos and rapists. Maybe this is just the logical next step.
"I only made love to him because he said he would call me...." He didn't, so its rape.
There is a reverse side to this. "I only had sex with her because I thought she was good looking." By morning this turned out to be very untrue.
(NOTE: Women make love, men have sex)
So come on you
Russia
Ten days jail for Russian rapper who mocked police
This is a good one. The British Police are pretty much a laughing stock these days. Maybe their only recourse is to make mocking them a criminal offence.
Rapper Ivan Alexeyev, 25, who is known as Noize MC, taunted policemen as "animals" at a July 31 concert in the southern Russian city of Volgograd.
Known for caustic lyrics, he performed a song about police brutality, which included the lines "Citizen! Halt. Halt. Turn out your pockets, slap, slap. Now your kidneys, kick, kick. Well off you go. Forget it, swallow it, be silent."
After the concert, he was approached by police and taken into custody until August 2 when a court found him guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced him to 10 days in prison
I spend half my life taking the piss out of PCSO's. By rights they should have thrown away the key by now. Come on ACPO. New law required. Mock a copper, go to prison.
Although, maybe if they didn't keep doing things like this and this we might not have so much reason to ROFPMSL.
Star Trek II. The Wrath of Cows.
Mark Wadsworths predicted cow war seems to be taking a turn for the eugenic. As reported by Dave and the Daily Mail 100 super cows have infiltrated the British Dairy industry and are planning an uprising (maybe).
Dave asks the insightful question, "Is it 100 cloned cows or one cow cloned 100 times?".
Big quote:
So meat and milk descended from cloned cows may be being sold to us in shops. Try as I might, I can't find a reason why I care.
Cloning, GM etc? I'm all for it. Are millions not dying of hunger right now? Lets get over these irrational fears of what is different.
Dave asks the insightful question, "Is it 100 cloned cows or one cow cloned 100 times?".
Big quote:
The Food Standards Agency watchdog doesn't even know where the cows at the centre of the investigation are, it has emerged, because the body responsible for registering all pedigree cows and bulls on farms, Holstein UK, would not disclose the information.
The Mail revealed yesterday that milk from the direct offspring of a clone had been put on shelves, despite this being illegal.
Eight of these direct offspring of the same cloned cow have been born in Britain, and they have gone on to produce a further 97 animals, and very probably more.
Worryingly for opponents of clone farming, there is currently no legislation against meat and milk from this next generation being supplied to UK consumers without special labelling.
So meat and milk descended from cloned cows may be being sold to us in shops. Try as I might, I can't find a reason why I care.
Cloning, GM etc? I'm all for it. Are millions not dying of hunger right now? Lets get over these irrational fears of what is different.
More laws please....
I've just watched an interesting report on BBC news. No I tell a lie, it was boring and predictable.
Apparently, road legal quad bikes are becoming ever more popular but the riders, gasp, are not wearing helmets.
Why? Because the law doesn't require it. So apparently we need tougher laws.
It was a typical biased BBC report. We had the idiot. A chap telling us he doesn't wear a helmet because it "looks cool".
We had the grieving relative. A sister who says her brother died of head injuries in a quad bike accident, who would be alive if he had wore a helmet. Well we will never know that one will we. If he had a helmet on, he may have broken his neck.
We had the expert. Not wearing a helmet is "putting lives at risk". "Currently, the law does not do enough to protect riders".
Its that last, carefully worded statement that grips my shit. "The Law" does not need to protect riders. Its up to the riders themselves to wear protective headgear or not. The law has nothing to do with it. Or at least it shouldn't.
This from the BBC news website :
Wearing protective gear, seatbelts, helmets, leathers etc should be the choice of the wearer. Accidents and injuries will happen with regular monotony, regardless of how far we legislate. Interference by the government invariably does more harm than good. The biggest impact of a new law will not be one or two lives saved, it will be thousands of pounds in fines for otherwise sensible drivers who choose not to wear a helmet.
And please don't say, "If it saves just one life......"
Apparently, road legal quad bikes are becoming ever more popular but the riders, gasp, are not wearing helmets.
Why? Because the law doesn't require it. So apparently we need tougher laws.
It was a typical biased BBC report. We had the idiot. A chap telling us he doesn't wear a helmet because it "looks cool".
We had the grieving relative. A sister who says her brother died of head injuries in a quad bike accident, who would be alive if he had wore a helmet. Well we will never know that one will we. If he had a helmet on, he may have broken his neck.
We had the expert. Not wearing a helmet is "putting lives at risk". "Currently, the law does not do enough to protect riders".
Its that last, carefully worded statement that grips my shit. "The Law" does not need to protect riders. Its up to the riders themselves to wear protective headgear or not. The law has nothing to do with it. Or at least it shouldn't.
This from the BBC news website :
Doctors say the law should be changed to force people who use road legal quad bikes to wear helmets.
Accident and emergency medics say lives are put at risk because riders do not have to wear protective gear - despite the fact the bikes can reach 90mph.
Quad bike rider Dan Ormesher told Newsbeat: "I don't think helmets should be worn, but obviously it's up to the people in charge.
"I sometimes wear a helmet, depending on how far I'm going. If I'm staying close, going round town, I won't wear a helmet.
"It's as dangerous as you make it. If you're a safe rider - sensible, aware of what's going on around you - you're more likely to be safe.
Glamour model Amii Grove is keen to see helmets made compulsory after she lost her brother, Lee Marley, in a quad bike accident two years ago.
The 24-year-old told Newsbeat: "He had a head-on crash with a Land Rover. He died because of his head injuries.
"So if it was compulsory to wear a helmet he would probably still be alive today."
Wearing protective gear, seatbelts, helmets, leathers etc should be the choice of the wearer. Accidents and injuries will happen with regular monotony, regardless of how far we legislate. Interference by the government invariably does more harm than good. The biggest impact of a new law will not be one or two lives saved, it will be thousands of pounds in fines for otherwise sensible drivers who choose not to wear a helmet.
And please don't say, "If it saves just one life......"
Nutty cancer cure
I've just received a new bag of Apricot Kernels through the post. I usually eat about eight to ten of then per day. Why? Because they prevent and cure cancer. Or so I'm told.
Apparently there is a substance contained in apricot kernels (and a variety of other stuff), called amygdalin. The active ingredient in Amygdalin is cyanide. Under normal circumstances it is chemically inert and harmless to living tissue. On contact with a cancerous cell, the amygdalin breaks down and releases the cyanide which kills the cancerous cell.
In theory. The medical community regards this as nothing less than pure quackery. The FDA in America has banned all reaserch into this area of cancer treatment and the UK has done likewise. The governement likes to take down websites that advocate apricot kernels as a cancer treatment (although I did a quick Google search before writing this and found quite a few).
There is a more concentrated form of amygdalin called laetrile. An attempt was made to classify leatrile as a vitamin (B17) in order to circumvent the US drug laws. It was unsucessful.
This comes from the Cancer Reaserarch UK (the people who want to ban smoking in cars) website:
So why do I continue, as a rational person, to spend my money on Apricot Kernels when the theory that they prevent cancer is so widely considered to be bollocks?
The question is, who considers it to be bollocks? Big pharma. Why? Probably because any cancer treatment that grows on trees cannot make them any money. Who else? The government. Why? Because big pharma is hugely influential with the government.
The small portion of the scientific community that beleives there may be something to all this want to do some proper research but they can't because all reaserach has been banned.
Take a look at the electrofag. It looks like that is soon to be banned. Why? Because big phucking pharma can't make any money out of it.
So until the government allows real scientists to do some real reaserach, I am gonna keep eating them. Besides, they taste damn good.
This is one of the websites that explains in more detail.
This is the opposing view from Cancer Reasearch UK
Apparently there is a substance contained in apricot kernels (and a variety of other stuff), called amygdalin. The active ingredient in Amygdalin is cyanide. Under normal circumstances it is chemically inert and harmless to living tissue. On contact with a cancerous cell, the amygdalin breaks down and releases the cyanide which kills the cancerous cell.
In theory. The medical community regards this as nothing less than pure quackery. The FDA in America has banned all reaserch into this area of cancer treatment and the UK has done likewise. The governement likes to take down websites that advocate apricot kernels as a cancer treatment (although I did a quick Google search before writing this and found quite a few).
There is a more concentrated form of amygdalin called laetrile. An attempt was made to classify leatrile as a vitamin (B17) in order to circumvent the US drug laws. It was unsucessful.
This comes from the Cancer Reaserarch UK (the people who want to ban smoking in cars) website:
Manufacturers of laetrile promote it as an alternative cancer treatment. This means it is used instead of conventional cancer treatment. The first use of laetrile as a treatment for cancer was in Russia in 1845, and it was used in the USA from the 1920s. In the 1950s, some people began promoting laetrile as a ‘highly active compound’ that can cure cancer. Unfortunately, this is simply not true - laetrile cannot cure cancer. The active ingredient in laetrile is cyanide, which is highly poisonous.
Laetrile can cause serious side effects. We don’t recommend that you replace your conventional cancer treatment with any type of alternative cancer therapy, such as laetrile. Or that you use laetrile alongside your cancer treatment.
So why do I continue, as a rational person, to spend my money on Apricot Kernels when the theory that they prevent cancer is so widely considered to be bollocks?
The question is, who considers it to be bollocks? Big pharma. Why? Probably because any cancer treatment that grows on trees cannot make them any money. Who else? The government. Why? Because big pharma is hugely influential with the government.
The small portion of the scientific community that beleives there may be something to all this want to do some proper research but they can't because all reaserach has been banned.
Take a look at the electrofag. It looks like that is soon to be banned. Why? Because big phucking pharma can't make any money out of it.
So until the government allows real scientists to do some real reaserach, I am gonna keep eating them. Besides, they taste damn good.
This is one of the websites that explains in more detail.
This is the opposing view from Cancer Reasearch UK
Wasting our money
New Blackburn Fire Station Plan Revealed.
Ok, there has to be something to blog about here. I mean Blackburn already has a fire station.
Ok, I'll admit it is a bit of a dog. But what about the cost to taxpayers?
Ok, well I don't want to get into the ins and outs of the PFI on a Monday morning. There must be something else?
Oh for fucks sake. I had to ask.....
Ok, there has to be something to blog about here. I mean Blackburn already has a fire station.
the current station, which was built in 1915, was ‘poorly planned and unsuitable for use as a community fire station’.
it (is) coming to the end of its useful life, had poor conditions for staff and (does) not meet hygiene conditions
Ok, I'll admit it is a bit of a dog. But what about the cost to taxpayers?
The new station,... will be built ... under a multi-million pound Public Finance Initiative contract.
Ok, well I don't want to get into the ins and outs of the PFI on a Monday morning. There must be something else?
THIS is the first picture of Blackburn’s new fire station – complete with its own eco-friendly roof garden.
Artists’ impressions of the building show a ‘living roof’ covered in low-growing plants which the architects said would improve insulation
Oh for fucks sake. I had to ask.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)