Science Digestive: The Podcast - 3

Another day, another load of semi-coherent gibberings with delusions of scientific intellectualism.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Scientology, from Science" (No. 13)

Number 13! Unlucky for some, if you believe in that sort of thing. Which I don't of course. And just to prove that I don't, I'm going to respond to some requests and dedicate this letter to a group which is more likely than most to track me down and hack my feet off in my sleep.

(If you're new here, welcome! The previous letters to the Media, Homeopathy, Astrology, Economics, Apple, Advertising, The Pope, Antivaxxers, Teaspoons, Alternative Medicine, Women and the BRAH are there for the perusing, if you have the inclination to view them)

"Dear Scientology

Hello.

You probably don't know me, but I'm the anthropomorphic personification of Science. Are you at least familiar with my work? I made aeroplanes and penicillin, and lasers, and stuff like that. Basically, if it doesn't occur naturally, I did it. And sometimes even if it does, but needs to be discovered and extracted. And even that definition will change, as soon as I can get enough approval for my GM crops. I don't understand why people are so opposed to it. Imagine, tomatoes the size of beach-balls, self peeling bananas, it would be great! Granted, can't rule out the possibility that they'll become self aware and turn against us (the 'Triffid' effect, think Skynet, but with pips).

Where was I again?

Oh yeah. Basically, I'm Science. And you're not. But you seem to be trading on my name. To be honest, I'd rather you didn't. I was told about you recently, and I really had to look you up. I can't say I'm pleased by what I found out.

Originally, going by what I was told, I assumed you were some sort of quazi-philosophical study of science, i.e. me. Any -ology, to me, is the study of something. That was quite an unnerving prospect. I have no objection to being studied (if I did it would be literally the biggest example of hypocrisy in recorded history), but I would worry that you've not told me your studying me. Prolonged study of someone without them knowing is more commonly regarded as 'stalking'. A crime in most places, and I'm not popular or sexy enough to make it OK.

(Admittedly, a lot of anthropologists would probably take issue with this argument. I would clarify my position, but seeing as my first assumption as to what you were about was utterly wrong, it seems meaningless)

Someone then told me that you were actually a Religion. Not a cult, apparently, you hate being described as a cult. I can't really see the issue there, it's like insisting you're a chiropractor, NOT an osteopath; either way, you're just being extremely pedantic about what sort of idiot you are.

But a religion with a name like yours led me to believe that you'd be a religion dedicated to science, which (as previously stated) is me. Although I would be flattered by the attention, I would have to thoroughly advise against such a thing, as it would be missing the point entirely. A religion about science? That's like trying to analyse the soul by dissecting the Pope, and that could never happen (the cardinals threw my anatomists out of the state chamber before they could get through his diaphragm).

But after some thorough research, I have discovered that you aren't a religion dedicated to me at all. You are in fact, founded on the writings of a sub-standard novelist who wrote rather crap science-fiction. I can tell it's crap because, unlike with the good stuff, I wasn't consulted on any of it. I usually get to at least proof-read it if the author has any credibility (Philip K Dick used to send me his manuscripts, but after reading his stuff I used to get a terrible migraine and have to lie down in a dark room, so I just let him get on with it in the end. And Dan Brown is actually a spambot that just got wildly out of hand).

What do you understand by the words 'science' and 'fiction'? From what I can tell, you've named yourself after the former but dedicated yourself to the latter. Why not go with 'Fictology'? Why drag me into it, against my will and with no justification for doing so? I've heard you get a lot of your teachings from 'Battlefield Earth'? I hope this isn't true, as that book is utter crap. About 2000 pages filled with poorly written childish bilge. It's ridiculous, basing an entire religion on a long winded, wildly unrealistic book written by someone who's been dead for some time. Like that sort of thing will ever work!

Honestly, for something with a name so similar to mine, you appear to have an alarming absence of awareness of what I'm about. Psychiatry is 'evil', but 'Auditing' is good for you? Making someone tell you their most painful secrets doesn't necessarily make them feel better about them. If anything, you've caused them to relive the painful memory, making it worse, and this is compounded by the fact that an insane cultist knows about it too. (Yes, I said cult this time, be grateful that I was willing to concede that much, it's perilously close to a very similar sounding term that I feel is more appropriate). And if you do think running a current through someone in order to make them feel better is a valid approach, you might want to up the voltage.

I also notice that your stronghold is in Hollywood, the mecca of brainlessness, fiction and the easily deluded. Makes sense I suppose. Have you thought about suing the antivaxxers? They stole your idea of using unhinged celebrities as chief spokespeople. You really should press charges, it'll be very useful to me to have you two fight to the death (and probably quite hilarious). You shouldn't worry about losing, your grip on reality is even more tenuous than theirs, and even if the worst happens your 'thetan' will endure (or soul, or whatever you call it, a unicorn by any other name still wouldn't exist).

I also looked up 'Dianetics'. Seems like a re-hash of some of Freud's ideas. If you are going to appropriate the ideas of some of my more infamous people, you don't have to go with the coke-addled loony with the self-confessed 'issues' regarding his mother. Why not try Galileo, or Kepler? They were more reasonable people, and studied space and stuff. You like that, don't you? You think you're space aliens? You might as well, makes as much sense as anything else.

So to summarize, you're a wannabe religion that's obsessed with money, power and control, that specialises in brainwashing people to conform to your ideals and is based on the ravings of some lunatic who wrote a giant book?

You want to watch yourself mate, you'll be given a most thorough ass-kicking imaginable. And that's not a threat, it's a warning. Nothing to do with me, but Catholicism is a jealous bugger, and he'll take you to the cleaners if you get too cocky.

Either way, cut your nonsense! You've combined the worst aspects of cults, religions, alternative medicine and celebrities, and that can't be good thing. If you had physical form, it would look like a huge Frankenstein's monster put together from bits of serial killers and televangelists that goes around mugging the villagers.

But what do I know, right? I'm just the personification of all human knowledge.

Love and kisses

Science (BA hons)

P.S. I do have many, many more things I can complain about regarding what you do and believe, but I'd be here forever if I tried to write them all down. I'd have to put them together in some massive and pointless book, and knowing you you'd only go an found a religion on it. Psycho."

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Big Brother's Big Bag of Balls

Here's how pervasive the phenomenon of modern reality TV has become.

I have not watched a single second, not seen a single still shot, nor have I bothered looking up any details on-line about the current series of Celebrity Big Brother (running in the UK at the moment, for the benefit of you lucky lucky foreigners), yet somehow I know all about it. How did that happen? I've heard theories that you learn faster when you're asleep, which I sincerely doubt, but to actively avoid information only to have it seep into your brain anyway? How does that work.
In his superb book 'Neverwhere', Neil Gaiman coins the phrase 'White knowledge', akin to 'white noise' but instead of a background noise it's background information that the majority of people become aware of without realising it. He uses this phrase to describe how people eventually end up knowing the ins-and-outs of the London Tube system, which makes sense as that would be very useful for residents of London who need to get about. I'm guessing I've picked up my Celebrity Big Brother (and no, I will not call it CBB) knowledge in a similar manner, for all that it is utterly useless to me. So this is what I know about the Celebrity Big Brother contestants.

DANE BOWERS - He was in that band. Another Blue Alert Level, wasn't it? He was the one with the high voice, or is that Blue? Then he went Solo for a bit when they finished, and did a song with Victoria Beckham, which strikes me as the musical equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. Then he was with Jordan for a while, which strikes me as the sexual equivalent of the same thing.

STEPHEN BALDWIN - If the Baldwin Brothers were Captain Planet's Planeteers, Stephen would be the one with the power of 'Heart'. A Born again Right-wing fundamentalist, the sort of person who does for regular Christians what Harold Shipman did for GPs, Stephen apparently doesn't believe in evolution because 'there are still Apes'. This argument convinced Dane Bowers and the glamour model one, and he no doubt thought of this as a victory for himself and God. Prick

SISQO - Most people who confess to having an underwear fetish are kept at arms length and usually pitied, but they at least have the decency to admit that it's weird. They don't write songs about it that become international smash hits. For clarification, Sisqo's biggest hit is 'The Thong Song', which is ridiculous; his crowning achievement was his role singing the chorus for 'Wild Wild West', the groundbreaking Will Smith rap/film. Sisqo also stays in my head as his name is a blatant rip-off of Captain Sisko, the lead character from Star Trek: Deep Space 9, who if it came down to it, could easily beat him in a fight.

LADY SOVEREIGN - A Lady Rapper? Whatever next. Apparently she's young and stroppy, like a spoiled Teen. Her credentials as a rapper are apparently 'she raps', by which logic I am a professional film critic as I've seen a film and talked about it before. I genuinely don't know anything about her, particularly why she's considered a celebrity. I imagine when her Rap career flounders she'll go back to mummy and daddy and they'll get her a well paid job as a consultant in 'the city' or something. To me, everyone who has more fame than ability has wealthy influential parents, and I've not been dissuaded of that preconception yet, no matter how wildly wrong it may be.

A WHOREMONGER - A woman who is famous for running a brothel that catered to celebrities. Is this in any way acceptable? Yes, she was in the papers (I'm told) but then so was Ian Huntley, and I don't think he's considered a 'celebrity'. Isn't it normal procedure to punish criminals? Why would she be on Celebrity Big Brother... ah...

SOMEONES GIRLFRIEND - Or is it ex girlfriend? Christ, that could describe any of the female Big Brother contestants. And Pete Burns.

VINNIE JONES - That guy who used to be a violent footballer, but now is an actor playing exclusively violent parts. I saw an interview when he started acting, where he said 'I really want to win an Oscar'. How's that plan working out, Vinnie?

SOME TITS - There's one who is basically a mobile life support system for a pair of breasts. There always is. Names are irrelevant, it might even be the same one every year. Nobody would realise. She needs to be there, to make the possibility of nudity a positive thing

THE OTHERS - There are others, like it makes a bit of difference.

For pretty much all my life, I have been overly aware of other people listening to me. I don't know why, maybe it was because I grew up in a busy pub; there was always someone around. As such, I always behave as if I'm in a library. I'm always conscious of speaking too loudly and disturbing others. As a result, I speak relatively quietly and very quickly, as most people who've spoken to me will attest to. So the thought of wanting to go on V and have millions of people take time to stare at you for hours on end is utterly alien to me.
Big Brother may have been interesting. Not sure if they still do, but they used to bill it as a 'social experiment'. Another example of the double standards of media types when it comes to Science (a hint of science makes something more credible, but if it's said or done by an actual scientist, it's boring and/or untrustworthy, see the MMR vaccine scandal for many examples of this.
If it's an experiment, what's the hypothesis? What are they measuring? Where are the dependant variables? Is this counterbalanced? Exactly how does 'let's put a bunch of twats in isolation and see what they do' benefit society?
2010 sees the last series of Big Brother, celebrity and regular. I personally think it could have lasted longer if they'd been more strict about the experimental aspect. Obviously, given the media Frenzy around it, the 'social experiment' that is Big Brother would have subjects skewed largely in favour of the 'Shallow fame-hungry twat' variety. For a proper experiment in social interaction, you'd need a control group. Imagine watching a house full of people who don;t want to be there, who've been randomly abducted from the street. I'd watch that, no doubt.

That would be quite illegal obviously, but if they're already glorifying Prostitution ring leaders, how is that any worse?

Twitter: @garwboy

Celebrities and Science, and never the twain shall meet.

Celebrities are misleading about Science

Some people have been complaining that celebrities mislead people about science. It's true, they do, but I don't really see it as a big a problem as those concerned make out. Granted, I'm the person who's the first to say that public awareness of Science is seriously lacking, and I greatly resent all these pseudo-scientists who get millions for spewing fictitious gibberish in the public's faces (see earlier rants regarding McKeith and her ilk).
However, I'm not sure this issue is that big a deal. The article reports that Delia Smith has been stating that if people could cut down on sugar then we could cure the nations obesity. This confuses me a bit, I don't see it as anything more than a generalised statement. If you cut down on pretty much anything you eat excessively then it would help with obesity. Unless you're addicted to carrots or something, but eating too many carrots will kill you faster than obesity (vitamin A poisoning I believe, can break down your cell lysosomes which releases all the aggressive enzymes into the cells and they break down, you sort of fall apart really slowly and horribly, it's very unpleasant or at least it was in the sci-fi novel I read where it happened which was very well researched but probably not a 100% dependable source of information).
If I was a celebrity, that previous quote taken out of context could be used to claim that I stated that carrots are lethal. Luckily I'm not a celebrity.
I think Delia's problem was that she tried the classic bluff of dropping a bit of science in to enhance credibility:
"After six weeks [without sugar] everything will taste sweet... because you will have got your palate back to what nature created". OK, I'm not sure that's true. Granted, you'll desire sugar less if your blood's always full of it, but things will taste different? Taste is a sense, and admittedly sight and the corresponding brain areas can change depending on the stimulus they get, but does this work for taste? And is it even the same thing? If I stop looking at red things for a few weeks, will everything start to look more red to me? If I stop touching metal things, will everything else feel like metal? Granted, this doesn't take into account the metabolic role of sugar, but if I'm confused, surely Delia should be more so? And isn't it a bit rich for a celebrity chef to have a go at people for eating too much? And would we want everything to taste sweet anyway? I prefer savoury things, as do many others. Everyone would start putting excess salt on their food to counteract it, which would cause more health problems. THINK, Delia!

That's one issue. Someone else has criticised Mariah Carey for her maths skills. That's just awful. The criticising I mean, not the Mariah Carey maths skills.

"Carey's grasp of maths came under fire after she said her album E=MC2 stood for "emancipation equals Mariah Carey times two" - rather than squared... Mathematician Dr David Leslie said Carey had "misread the algebra" after adapting Einstein's famous equation for her album title. "The 'two' in the equation means C squared, not MC multiplied by two. "The correct reading of the equation is E=MCC, so perhaps Mariah's re-interpretation should have been 'emancipation equals Mariah Carey Carey'?"

Jesus Christ! Firstly, anyone who takes their mathematical learning from Mariah Carey is clearly beyond any hope. And secondly, what a dickhead! Not really doing much for the impression of Scientists there, and have you ever heard of poetic license? And I don't even like Mariah Carey, but come on.

Then they talk about Tom Cruise disputing the use of psychiatry. But lets bare one thing in mind; Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. Anything he says, does, or even thinks, can be discounted for ever and ever amen. He says this because... Ah, but is he a Scientologist? Then he's wrong. Even if he told me Gravity pulled you down, I'd have to get a bag of apples and a high window just to check. Therefore, all his claims are nonsense. Nuff said.

There's more about Demi Moore not understanding detox and other stuff, but I don't think they should be blamed for this. They're not scientists. Agreed, it's harmful when you figure the influence they have, but that's the unthinking minions who worship them who are responsible.

You may wonder why I'm being so lenient to misinformed stars? It's because these reports of their claims are filtered through the media, therefore I don't believe them. Why? Because it's happened to me. See here. It sounds like I agree with this 'most depressing day of the year' nonsense. I made it quite clear that I didn't and explained why in some detail, but in fairness to the South Wales Echo, that doesn't make for an easily readable story, does it? Still, makes me look like a dweeb.

So take every media claim of celebrity claim with a pinch of salt. All the better to take away that persistent sweet taste


P.S. The 'most depressing day of the year' occurs again a week today, and ITV Wales have asked to do an interview with me about why people should stay cheerful. Dejavu indeed. I shall do my best to ruin it if they try to dumb me down again. Watch this space for details.

Sore throat? Get a new one...

Stem Cells used to rebuild throat!

Spanish woman gets her damaged trachea replaced by a stem-cell developed new one? Admittedly, I've twice used the word 'throat' now without actually being technically accurate, as it's the windpipe that feeds into the lungs that's been replaced. This isn't technically part of the throat, in my limited experience, although it does connect to it. Still, it's an impressive feat.
The article mentions several drawbacks though. The holy grail of stem-cells seems to be taking a clump of stem cells from the person who needs a transplant, put them in a dish of some sort, then grow whatever organ or tissue is needed by said patient, then stick it back in them. Sort of like some squidgy but biologically advanced herb garden, perhaps? That would understandably be great, preventing the need for this whole opt in-opt out organ donor malarkey.

I'm firmly in the opt-out camp myself, if organs from my mangled carcass can be used to save lives why the hell wouldn't I approve? A lot of people I've heard are just uncomfortable with the idea for no discernible reason. "It's not natural" apparently. Of course not, it's medicine. The natural thing to do would be just to let everyone die when they get ill, even if it's something easily curable, but we don't do that, because as thinking, rational beings we don't have to submit to natures whim's. Nature doesn't have whims either, it's a concept, or a process or whatever you like. Some people don't allow themselves medication because of their ultra religious beliefs which state that illness is the work of God, so by treating themselves they are going against his will. Unlike most scientists, I support this viewpoint. If I was God, and I'm at least a close second, the first thing I'd do is kill off all the people that stupid. So good luck to them. Or not.

So, back to the point, his trachea surgery is brilliant, but not quite perfect. For starters, someone still had to die for the surgery to go ahead. Without getting into the whole aborted -foetuses debate, this is a less than desirable pre-requisite for any surgery. Before they've begun, it's already got a 50% mortality rate. But there's potential for improvement, as they needed a donor trachea to provide a 'framework' for the stem cells to grow around. I guess it's beyond our means to make false ones at the moment, but still, here's hoping. We obviously can't control the way the stem cells develop in spatial configurations at the moment, but it's a start.

Also, I like the way the article states that the use of stem cells 'tricked the body into thinking the donor trachea was part of it'. If we're being honest, the stem cells are technically part of her body, so it's not really a trick. The trachea structure is donated, but does that make up the bulk of the donated tissue after every donor cells has been scrubbed off? But that's just being pedantic.

So, the scope for this is endless, but as always I worry about such procedures being abused, or used for less than noble purposes. If we can make safe, reliable organs to order, would people be happy with the ones they've got? My initial throat confusion was genuine, and lead me to wondering if the Spanish lady had the same voice as before. Obviously a trachea transplant wouldn't effect that, but what if it was the larynx and voice box?

Say some well-to-do person wanted to be a singer, so they get specially designed voice box made that allows them to sing well. But of course, a voice is nothing if you don't have the lungs to use it right. So they get a new pair of those too, bigger and better and fresher than the old ones, which are taken out and thrown in the bin, as no-one needs donor's anymore. Theoretical person can now sing very well. But being a famous singer is more than just vocal ability these days, it's about image. So person gets all ugly parts of her, or his, but lets say her, her body removed and replaced with specially designed better ones. Lets say for arguments sake that said person is horrifically ugly, so all bits of her body, bar skeleton and brain and some connective tissue, get replaced. Now we have basically the bulk of a person sat squelching in the corner. Rap it around a skeleton, bung in a rudimentary brain and it could be used to perform very simple tasks, like digging holes, pushing buttons or working for Virgin Railways. All unskilled labourers could be made redundant, replaced by the flung-off semi-carcasses of the wealthy.

So what happens to our now attractive singing person? She becomes a star for a brief period, but then people start doing the same and redesign themselves to be more talented and better looking and ever on to the point where she gets left behind in the race to be the next new superhuman celebrity star person thing. She gets depressed and sinks into drink (seriously damaging 8 Livers before the money runs out) and drugs (4 septums lost to coke and 2 arms lost to repeated use of infected needles, all replaced before money runs out). After a lengthy spell in 'rehab' where she's chained to a wall for 23 hours a day and gets hosed down regularly (proper comfy rehab is for people with money, which as we've established, has run out), she attempt to re-launch her career by appearing on 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here', but in this day and age the horrific trials involve eating massive, swollen organs like anuses and bladders grown from her own cells, while being watched and laughed at by Ant & Dec (versions 4.8).

This combination of copious autocannibalism while being mocked by small Geordie clones finally destroys the last vestiges of her sanity. She tries to get a brain replacement, but that's the only organ that can't be replaced as it would mean she's not the same patient anymore, and medical malpractice insurance doesn't cover that. But she's adamant, so they put her under anaesthetic and just remove her brain and launch it into space. Not for research, just to get rid of her because she's getting on everyone's nerves.

So what I'm saying is, stem cells, not necessarily a good thing.