The sacking of Professor Nutt by Alan Johnson, the British Home Secretary, has to do with the differences between belief and evidence. For some, such as the Home Secretary, belief is more important than evidence. The Home Secretary believes that drugs are the cause many of the problems found in our society, whereas the evidence, gathered by hundreds of scientists over many years of research, shows quite the opposite.

The acceptance of belief over evidence has been occurring for thousands of years. The Catholic Church, persecuted Nicholas Copernicus back in 14th century, because he pointed out that the earth was not the centre of the universe, just as Alan Johnson has persecuted Professor Nutt. The same happened to Galileo in the 15th century, when he found that Jupiter had moons. This condemnation based on belief, is not limited to politicians, the ideas of plate tectonics and warm blooded dinosaurs that later became birds were both condemned by those in power in the scientific community, when they were proposed, because the concepts did not fit in the beliefs of the scientists who controlled research.

What has happened here, is the same that had occurred in the 1800's the poor were considered to be lazy, and laws were passed to force them to work, when in reality, the poor were just that, because of economic factors that they could not control. The poor were punished because those in power believed they were at fault for their own situation. It took others to find the evidence that the poor were poor, because of other factors, and it took many years before those in power were willing to admit that the poor were not lazy.

In this case, the evidence shows that alcohol and tobacco causes more heath problems than cannabis. It has also been shown that smoking cannabis creates only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness. Many of the individuals who do smoke cannabis that also have psychotic illnesses have been shown to be better off smoking the drug, than they would be if they hadn't been smoking it. Many doctors feel these individuals have been successfully self medicating themselves.

But this is not what the Health Secretary believes to be true. Therefore, he must punish Professor Nutt, much as the Catholic Church punished those who also found evidence that contradicted their beliefs, and for the same reason.

As long as evidence is not allowed to be given it's proper due, scientists will not be allowed to have opinions.

Over the past several weeks, I've travelled on various trains and the London Underground (the Tube) to get to work.

I've been impressed with the number of foreign languages I've heard.

When I regularly traveled on the Tube a few years ago, most people spoke English, even if they were speaking with a heavy accent.

Now I hardly ever hear English, even the Underground staff can often be heard speaking to one another in foreign tongues.

I can't help but wonder how many words British English is going to pick up from this influx of visitors, as it has from all the others in the past.

Many newspapers are reporting that teachers and some scientists are suggesting that creationism should be taught in school science classes, see:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2988753/Creationism-should-be-taught-in-science-lessons-say-teachers.html

I must admit that after careful consideration and thought, I've decided they are all correct, provided... all religious organisations start allowing and paying for the teaching of Science in all it's forms, as part of their Religious services.

Seems fair to me!

I have three emails accounts I use from home. One is targeted for work, one I used socially and the third is the one I use for registering when asked for an email address. The third one gets so much spam, I hardly ever use it except to go on to delete spam.

On my social email address I hardly ever get spam... usually the only spam I get are those who I've decided I don't want to read their emails anymore and I've marked their email addresses as spam.

My work email address until recently I never got spam. But over the last few months, while looking for a new contract, I started to get spam for drugs, rollex watches and sex sites... all items I have never searched for or suggested in any of my work emails that I might want to purchase any of these items.

Those who send these spam, must do so to make money, but it really makes me wonder how they stay in business... Do that many people actually click through and purchase fake rollex watches to pay for someone to go through the trouble? Selling real Rollex watches now, selling one $10,000 watch, would pay for a lot of emails though.

It makes me wonder if someone did a study which showed that for every 10,000 bogus rollex emails sent, it meant that another real Rollex was purchased, and that when more emails get sent, more people decide to purchase the real thing

It would certainly explain the increase in spam in my box.

I get so many thoughts during the day, I have to remember to type them out on here, even if no one else ever reads them, at least I get a release from the thoughts that invade my head.

I read a lot of scientific journals... for my enjoyment I hasten to add, no one says I have to read them, I just enjoy it. And sometimes I put things together on reading them.

Corn Syrup, and more importantly High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is used more and more in our foods and drinks.

Now in a study, that has just been released this week, it seems that animals that have a lot of fructose in their diet, (and no matter what others say, we are animals), are more likely to to become obese and to develop diabetes.

Before anyone says anything, they have also studied humans on diets high in fructose, and found that we humans are more likely to become obese on the diet and perhaps the diabetes is the same.

So why don't they use Corn Syrup for alcohol to run our cars, and leave it out of our foods?

I was sitting in the pub last week, enjoying the smell of stale beer sans tobacco smoke. I was in the corner, no one was near me as I enjoyed the taste of the local ale. None of that American stuff in a bottle, but real ale.

Without realising it, I was humming the tune of a popular song, one I guess I either heard on a radio or as the background music from the TV, when the landlord came over and asked me to stop humming. Not that he minded humming, but apparently someone from the British Music Police had told him that in order to have live music, he needed to pay them money. He claimed to have jokingly said that no one would be able to hum or sing anymore, only to be told that "Yes, if you let people sing or hum without paying, you will be liable to a fine, even if you don't pay them."

This took me back. I thought they wanted us to sing these songs to ourselves, but I guess they just want us to listen to them, even if we are private citizens.

Sad world we live in now.

Why is it considered acceptable for women to wear sandals to work, but it not for men?

Why is it acceptable for a woman to wear a t-shirt to work but men must wear shirts and ties.

Why are long sleeve t-shirts acceptable for women for working but not men?

Why can women wear long shorts or short trousers for women but not men?

Why are women allowed to expose large sections of their chests at work but men cannot unbutton their shirts.

In hot weather, women often wear skirts and shorts to work, but men cannot.

Could this inequality against men be a reason why men tend to still get more pay?

Because of the hazards of being forced to wear what is effectively winter clothing during the summer?

Just a thought.

I know a quite a few people who claim that the charity street solicitors are sometimes not who they seem. These are the street hawkers who walk up to you asking for a minute of your time, then spend the next half hour talking you into giving your name, various details and your credit card number for the purpose of making donations to the charity of their choice.

It is claimed that even though they have what are very convincing ID cards, once you have given your details, you may find your card has been used in purchasing computers, holidays or even porn without your consent.I don't know how true this is, but I have noticed some of these workers can get quite aggressive when people want to walk away. I always thought it had to do with them being paid so much for each contributor, but if the card details are also used for other purposes, it makes sense that they would not want people to get away before these important details have been gleaned. I have been approached over and over by the same individuals, who seem to be working for different charities on different days and located in different places.

I think that the fact that I walk from the train station to work eschewing the idea of using the underground daily when a 20 minute walk gets me to where I need to go and is probably healthier for me in the long run; and that I tend to use different routes depending on the day and how I feel; means I run across these individuals more often than those who do go underground.

I often wonder how these people get vetted to do their jobs and who is actually collating the credit card data. So keeping in mind the experience of others, when I make contributions, I make the directly to the charity involved, staying away from third party collectors.

I’m not suggesting that you should do the same, but do you know where your card details are going when you give your details to a stranger on the street?

Depression is a friend of mine
Who comes around when I’ve the time,
To think about what might have been,
And lack the strength to start again.

It comes and goes without a care,
Of who or what or when or where
I am, or even who I’m with,
It comes along, it is a gift.

A gift that’s given to myself,
Assembled from my mental shelf,
Of promises and broken dreams,
Of chances lost and other things.

Built from regret and glued with hate,
Stitched with grief and bound by fate,
Stained by choice and shattered hope,
Makes me wonder, how I cope.

It nestles down inside my head,
And smothers all the things I’ve said,
About ‘caring not what others say’
Or ‘I’ll be happy again, someday.’

It ruins thought and stifles smiles,
It lingers on as I drive miles
Between the places I must go,
Stealing time and what I know.

When it looms inside my head,
My mind goes blank and what I’ve said
And all I’ve learnt is soon forgotten
Heart in mouth, taste is rotten.

When it will go, a broken spell,
Or if it will return, I cannot tell,
Instead I try to clear my mind,
Live for the moment, delaying time.

Richard Way - 1995

I've been kind of brain dead for a while. This seems to happen to me when ever I get emotionally destroyed by something in my life. I think I'm recovering now, although I guess you can never be sure. I started this blog last year to try to bring myself some outlet to release the tensions in my head, then they got so bad, I couldn't continue posting.

But fortunately, the blog is still here, and so am I. So I'm going to start again.

I'm writing things to post, and will be doing so shortly.

thanks for baring with me.

Join the believers in Mumbo Jumbo, and be saved.

It is the only religion that requires you to rub blue mud into your belly button, in order to go to heaven. All the other religions require all sorts of things; this one only requires an application of blue mud.

Just can't wait till the Resurrection, when everyone find out that those who believed all these myths their religions espoused were wrong and all go to hell, because they didn't believe and rub blue mud into their navels.

There will be much gnashing of teeth, when the Day of Judgment comes, from the unbelievers who mistakenly believe that they and not the blue bellied believers will rise to sit at God's side. Yes, the hell of unbelievers will be filled with wailing infidels on that great day. All hail Robert A. Heinlein, the great prophet, who even today sits on the right side of God, and awaits the judgment day.

Well, makes about as much sense as all these other religions...

We are interesting creatures.

Biologically we are not carnivores, and we are not herbivores, we are omnivores. This can be determined by our dentition, our biochemistry and our alimentary canal. This has been complicated because we have been cooking our food for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. There is plenty of evidence that Homo erectus used fire in various ways and this probably included cooking. If we were herbivores, our intestines would be much longer. If we were carnivores, they would be much shorter. Instead we have the middle of the road intestines of the typical omnivore. While large mammal protein was probably not part of our diets to any large extent except as scavenged material, small mammals, birds, lizards, molluscs, fish and insects certainly were.

Even today, primitive peoples, while they do eat a lot of vegetation, supplement a large part of their diet with these, especially insects. Only where 'English' Culinary sensibilities have been imposed, do people not ingest large quantities of insects and molluscs. It has been estimated that up to 80% of some ancient peoples diets were derived from molluscs, fish and insects. That's a large amount of protein in anyone's book. Large mussels and oyster maddens showing evidence of roasting in fires found along the coast of Africa that have been carbon dated as far back as 120,000 years show anatomically modern humans have been eating these proteins for a long time.

This is confirmed by our biochemistry, we are the only primates to have the ability to handle large amounts of protein. We can process uric acid while not as well as dogs or cats, better than most other omnivores. Just as the ability digest lactose as adults has been genetically selected in humans in some regions of the earth, this ability to handle large amounts of protein had to also be selected, and as all humans, throughout the world have this biochemical ability, and our closest primate relatives, the Bonobo chimpanzee does not it occurred sometime after our ancestors went their separate ways. Our brains require large amounts of specific omega-3 and other oils for proper development, and the easiest way to get these, especially for primitive peoples, is to eat seafood, insects, certain types of seeds, free range mammals, (such as sheep, goats, pigs and grass fed cattle) and free range birds or their eggs. Or in other words animals that are allowed to eat their natural foods, not intensively farmed as we do today.

Vegetarianism for humans was only possible when we started to cook and/or process our food and or use foodstuffs that were not available for the vast majority of people throughout history. There are few staples that provide the correct combinations of amino acids humans require in the correct proportions. Sesame seeds and potatoes are the only two that spring to mind. All others need to be combined in the correct proportions. Only our modern world do we have access to all the foodstuffs that primitive peoples developed over millennia, and can actually embrace a complete vegetarian diet without harm

I have no problem with vegetarianism, enjoying the many vegetarian meals that I do, but as soon as I start hearing the catch phrase that that those who eat meat are poisoning themselves with toxic materials, from experience I have to immediately reject their statements as the result of not understanding human biochemistry, plant biochemistry, genetics and medicine. Of course there are lots of doctors have their theories and preach this what I can only call, religious material, but I'm sorry, like many evangelist preachers, they seem to be in it for the money.

The only toxic chemicals you find in meat, apart from the uric acid produced from processing the protein, are those that are put in it as preservatives. Plants on the other hand, are full of toxic chemicals. The cooking process destroys many of these, but there are many are not destroyed. Healthy human livers fortunately are capable of handling these toxic materials, and as healthy human kidneys are capable of removing excess uric acid and other toxic chemicals from our blood.

Another catch phrase that turns me off, is the quote, "The average man contains 10 pounds of undigested meat in their intestine" or "(corpse rotting in your gut)", as the father of modern vegetarianism, Sylvester Graham, invented both phrases as he later admitted later in his life, with no medical or biological evidence, as he needed a way to shock people into giving up meat. Indeed, if meat were to 'rot' or sit undigested in the intestine, it would quickly promote the growth of bacteria that are present in all of us, and would quickly kill the individual.

The third catch phrase that turns me off is when someone starts telling me that I am ‘murdering animals’ by eating meat. This emotional blackmail doesn't sit well with me, as neither does the suggestion that I should be willing start eating my own children, if I am willing to eat animal protein. Modern Vegetarianism does provide all the required proteins, oils, minerals, complex and simple carbohydrates that the modern human requires. Why not just state the case without the blackmail?

There has only ever been one complete scientific study to show the effects of a meat and fat only diet, that was called off after a year and the individuals who took part in the study were completely healthy through the experiment, and lived a long and healthy lives. There have been scientific studies on several groups of people, who just eat meat, milk, cheese and fat for large portions of the year, the Inuit are one such group who have traditionally just eaten fish, seal and blubber for up to nine months of the year, but there are others, such as the Sami, who live on reindeer meat and fat for again up to nine months of the year. There are others if you care to look, and many of them also live long and healthy lives on most of their lives on animal protein.

If non-intensive farming could support the human population, I’d be happy. But it isn't. And there are large tracts of land that will never be able to produce more than grass or trees without resorting to intensive fertilisation. But grass fed cattle, sheep, rabbits, chickens, guinea pigs or goats can be successfully raised in these areas, deer can more than successfully live in the margins of woodlands, and there are other animals that can thrive in woodland. All of these can be culled and used for meat without affecting either the environment or reducing the farming footprint.

If we really wanted to reduce our ecological footprint, we should be growing fruits and vegetables in our front, back and side gardens, and growing small animals such as rabbits or guinea pigs to use the scraps of vegetables we produce while preparing our food. But we tend to look at these as pets these days, instead of the valuable resources that they actually are.