Readers will know that Herself is in hospital. She is OK and should be home before the end of the week.
Anyway, something interesting was revealed. When I put the grey bin out on Sunday, it was only about half full. The grey bin is the general rubbish bin, and it is emptied fortnightly. Usually, it is full.
Herself had been in hospital for a full week.
A large part of the rubbish accumulated is caused by Herself.
A researcher gets wind of this fact, and, seeing an opportunity for a grant, decides to do a study. He somehow contacts several hundred family associates of invalids who had to go into hospital. He asks if rubbish was reduced during the patient’s stay in hospital. He gets all sorts of varying results, but the general trend was that rubbish was reduced, on average, by 25% per week.
This result confirms the first impression – invalids cause an accumulation of rubbish, and that accumulation is a direct consequence of the illness, whatever it might be. He recommends that a law should be passed which would increase taxes on any person who is an invalid in order to pay for the extra rubbish collection costs caused by the fact that that person is an invalid.
What do we observe in the above story which is an obvious, massive error? It is that the researcher has assumed something. He has assumed that the illness and hospitalisation affects no one else in the household.
You see, the illness does indeed, indirectly, cause a certain amount of rubbish. For example, in my case, the visits of the district nurse to change dressings, always produces a small bag-full of discarded stuff, like old dressings, plastic aprons, gloves, packaging, wipes, etc, together with other more intimate stuff. While she is in hospital, that is not happening. Further, the rest of us are not engaging in our usual pursuits to quite the same extent. There is less waste. Household costs are increased, but those cost are external, and so is any waste produced thereby. I’m talking about snacks and drinks in the hospital cafe, hospital car park theft charges, petrol, etc.
My point is that it is easy to see how epidemiological studies, no matter how often repeated with the same result, can fail to take into account factors which are not known to exist. For example, in talking about Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’, nowhere did he attempt to allow for the fact that many, many of the doctors involved would have been caught up in the traumas of both WW1 and WW2. Who knows what the affect of those traumas, together with smoking and drinking, etc, might have been? I just feel that any doctor, even though a non-smoker, who was caught up in those events, would almost certainly have started smoking. Doctors’ nerves are no different from non-doctors’ nerves – they still jangle when under stress.
What was the big problem regarding the Doctors Study, and all the other studies, in the McTear Case (see sidebar) which caused Judge Nimmo Smith to reject every claim of the Zealots about smoking causing lung cancer? It was the lack of direct proof of any sort. It is like being ignorant of the affect of hospitalisation on other members of the family, and the reduction in the creation of waste resulting. [By the way, the actual creation of waste by herself at home is minuscule. How can it be otherwise since she actually, physically does hardly anything at all?] The epidemiologists can bluster until they are blue in the face, but the fact is that calculations are just that – calculations. They prove nothing.
And so we see the extension of political ignorance into foodstuffs. Now, that incompetent, wasteful, corrupt organisation called the World Health Organisation has declared that processed meat (meaning, meat which might have been treated with preservatives, smoked, and other treatments), is a number 1 carcinogen, just like smoking tobacco. It seems that, when they say No.1, they mean definitely so. They do not mean that it is as dangerous as smoking, but that it is just as definite.
Frankly, even though this is a bit ‘conspiracy theory’, I cannot help but see a connection with ‘Sustainability’. Too much land is taken up by browsing cows, which could produce more food if it was ploughed and turned to the production of vegetation. Who decided to spend millions of pounds looking for the adverse affects of eating meat rather than the beneficial affects? Who decided and who paid?
The sickness and corruption is becoming too obvious for even the MSM to ignore. But they will ignore it for some time yet. The reason is that it is not sensational enough. And because the MSM does not report it, neither do politicians consider it to be important, and so they let it go on and on and on. They have let it go on and on and on to the extent that they have allowed matters to becomes so complex that they those matters have become incomprehensible. I speak of the EU, WHO, UN, World Bank, IMF, etc. Further, the only way out is going to be some sort of civil war. It may not be fought with weapons, but it will be just as bloody in the sense of deprivation. What we all be able to do if our bank balances suddenly disappeared? Similar things have happened. For example, when it was discovered that the Mirror owner, Maxwell, had been raiding the pension fund of employees to support the Mirror, thousands of employees lost the pensions that they had been paying for.
Osborne ET AL have tried to reduce Gov expenditure by cutting tax credits. The Lords has rejected that plan. So why does the Gov not stop funding corrupt organisations like the UN and the EU? There is no real need to renegotiate Treaties. Just stop the money supply. The money being given away is OUR money.
OK. So my little homily about epidemiology and its failings has turned into an attack on all things global. I think that my attack is reasonable since globality, as presently formulated, will condemn billions of people to perpetual poverty. The resources of the Earth available to us have hardly been scratched, never mind exhausted.
But we should recognise the fact that the population cannot go on increasing ad inf. That is what the UN and WHO is worried about, and rightly so. But rather than say so directly, they mess about. Weird, is it not, that they want to keep people alive longer but want to reduce births?
Our Elected Representatives should be asking questions. What they should be asking are questions like, “Who is controlling the World Bank, and what does it do?”
Start at the top.