Monthly Archives: September 2013

So According to Rob Rhinehart, You Don’t Need Food to Live

I came to learn of the existence of Rob Rhinehart about a week ago. Apparently, he claims to have perfected a method that allows you to, well, not eat.

He also, apparently, has a blog documenting his journey towards not eating. And he has kindly given an interview on his not-foodstuff, called Soylent.

(No, not Soylent of “ZOMG Soylent Green contains people!!11!” fame. Soylent as in “weird beige cocktail claimed to be able to replace food”. I know, weird.)

It reminds me of something called “breatharianism”, except this one has a cocktail. For those of you who don’t know, breatharianism is basically the New Age idea that people need not eat food at all, because aliens are providing food from the sky in some sort of spaceship around the earth (that no one’s detected yet, but what’s stopping them?).

The idea of Soylent is similar, because of the claim that you don’t need food to live. But instead of thinking that they could just look at the sun to get subsistence, they think that drinking a cocktail should do it.

Do I personally recommend it? Well, no. While you could theoretically just take supplements for the rest of your life, it won’t really taste as good. Food also has other compounds in it (especially in fruits and vegetables) of which we do not fully understand its function or its effects on our health. We don’t really know how the body will process Soylent.

And honestly, taking the time to make food yourself just makes you feel happy. I don’t really know if I could replicate that with Soylent. Maybe it’s the conditioning in me that does it.

But instead of actually making my opinion and telling it to you, I’m leaving it up to you to decide. What do you people think?

In the meanwhile, let me just say that this lentil salad that I made and had sitting in the fridge for a few days tastes pretty good.

NaturalNews: Apparently All of Genetics is a LIE

I got bored and decided to take a short glance at NaturalNews. Why I did that, I don’t know. I might sign up for his newsletter for future blog material, but I’m digressing.

For anyone who doesn’t know, NaturalNews is a website that’s run by Mike Adams, the self-proclaimed “Health Ranger”. He’s also a bit of an anti-science, paranoid gun-loving nut who is in the thrall of InfoWars, a well known conspiracy mongering site.

Anyways, one of the articles published yesterday was entitled “The Big Lie of Genetics Exposed: Human DNA Incapable of Storing Complete Blueprint of the Human Genome”.

I’ll be honest, since I’m considering a career in biotechnology and mess with genomes, I wanted to check it out. If genetics was a lie, we’d know about it, right?

So let’s get started.

The curse of being a critical thinker is that you can’t turn it off, I’ve discovered.

Well yeah, that kind of sucks. I walk around the supermarket near where I live and I see bottles of water with vitamins added to them that apparently have some sort of effect. I then get irritated because most people don’t need additional nutritional supplements, and honestly, is there any evidence that they’ll do what they claim to do? I should do some research on that, actually. Hm.

But in the end, it keeps me from making stupid choices, like massaging my thyroid in an attempt to cure my hypothyroidism. Or think that I need to restrict my consumption of gluten because I have a secret food allergy to that and I don’t know it. Or trying homeopathy. Or wasting my money on Airborne and similar products.

I’m digressing again. Oops.

Join me as we take an honest, critical look at genetics using the same kind of skepticism scientists demand we invoke when looking at medicinal herbs or acupuncture.

Adams, do you even know how to be honest OR critical? I mean, you’re the same person who declared that psychiatrists will become the newest law-enforcement officers and blindly endorsed this anti-vaccination report that STILL makes the claim that vaccines cause autism somehow, even though we have studies that show that autism and vaccines are not related in any way.

I’m sorry, that was low of me. Moving on.

Genetics is an attempt by materialistic scientists to offer a purely materialist view of inheritance and development of not just physical bodies but non-physical inherited attributes such as instinctive behaviors and cellular function.

Because obviously saying “God done it” is a better theory and can be tested under controlled conditions, right?

According to the theory of genetics, physical gene sequences contained in chromosomes found in each cell in your body are a “blueprint” for all your body’s physical structures, biochemical functions and inherited behavioral patterns. This blueprint, the theory goes, contains ALL the instructions needed to create a complete human form with all its physical structures, physiological functions and inherited behaviors fully represented and complete.

Theory. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Also, there’s no such thing as “the theory of genetics”, as far as I know. There’s a scientific discipline in biology called genetics, but I’m pretty sure that much of what we know about genetics and inheritance falls under the theory of evolution as the means to how natural selection works to pass on desirable traits.

Because of the enormous complexity of the human body, organ function, cell structures and instinctive behaviors, it was once believed that humans must possess somewhere around 2 million protein-coding genes. The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990 with the widespread belief that when it was finished, it would “unlock” all the mysteries of the origins of disease in humans.

This is true. We originally thought that we would have millions of genes in our cells, because we thought that the bigger the animal, the more genes needed to make us.

It was also believed that when the human genome fully mapped, scientists would be able to create humans in any form they wanted, including humans with extra arms or legs, humans free of all disease, humans with “enhanced” physical powers, and so on.

Um, no, as far as I know, that wasn’t the goal of the Human Genome Project.

Okay, now I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the goal of the Human Genome Project.

The first draft of the Human Genome Project was published in the year 2,000. Far from being a breakthrough that would end all human disease, its findings utterly shattered the mythology of genetics as the sole explanation for all inheritance and physical development. Why? Because the Human Genome Project found that humans have only about 20,000 protein-coding genes, roughly the same number as the roundworm.

Huh? A human being has about the same number of protein-coding genes as a roundworm? Yes. And that’s straight out of the mouths of human genome researchers who are, themselves, hard-core materialists.

By comparison, the common fruit fly has about 15,000 genes, only marginally less than a human. And yet it is obvious to any intelligent observer than a human being is considerably more complex than a fruit fly and a roundworm. So why didn’t the Human Genome Project find a lot more genes that code proteins in humans?

Emphasis theirs.

Besides recalling that the goal of the Human Genome Project was NOT to eradicate ALL disease, someone should explain to Adams that appeal to complexity doesn’t an argument make.

So we thought that we were going to be more complex, and it turns out that we weren’t. Then, as real scientists are wont to do, we went ahead and tried to find out why that is, right?

The findings of the multi-billion-dollar Human Genome Project shattered the mythology of genetic materialism, sending nearly the entire scientific community into a tailspin and forcing “the great genetic cover-up” to begin.

Human genes simply needed “more research” to be understood, scientists exclaimed. And since the year 2000, that research has continued to no avail. The cover-up continues…

The truth is that there isn’t enough data storage in 20,000 genes to hold a blueprint for a human being.

Nope. In typical Mike Adams fashion, science is really just doing a “cover-up”. Scientists aren’t trying to discover the reasoning behind anything, they’re just lying their asses off while they sit at home eating bon-bons!

Is he trying to point us in the direction of “God done it”? I feel like he is, for some reason. Maybe it’s from having debated with creationists on this subject on the Internet. They’d always argue that making humans is too hard for it to happen “by chance”. Never mind that natural selection doesn’t happen “by chance”.

Allow me to explain this from a computer science point of view,

Because the entire study of genetics is the same thing as a computer program.

750MB of data is so small that no one can explain how it could possibly account for a human body with extraordinary complexity while somehow encompassing physical, structural, functional and behavioral inheritance as well.

Why does this argument sound so familiar?

To get a grasp of the complexity of the human body, realize that your body is made of 60 – 90 trillion cells. Each cell is its own ecosystem with highly complex functions including cell energy production, waste removal, cell membrane function, the nucleus command control center, and so on.

Your body manufactures 10 million red blood cells every hour. It has a capacity to heal damaged tissues almost everywhere. Your skin and intestines are being slowly replaced with new cells every minute. Your immune system is incredibly complex and highly capable, representing the most advanced system of nanotechnology that modern science has ever witnessed.

On top of all this, you are born with innate behaviors and the ability to develop, all on your own, the behavioral skills to walk, talk, focus your eyes, digest foods, eliminate waste, sweat, breathe and much more. Meanwhile, your body accomplishes billions of chemical reactions every second without you even knowing it. Somehow, every cell, organ and organ system in your body knows what to do to keep you alive and functioning.

Your body and its functions are unimaginably complex. Simply cataloging the structure and function of all the cells in your body right now would take countless terabytes of data — more than a million times larger than “megabytes” of data.

“OMG genetics and evolution is too hard. GOD DONE IT.”

No, seriously, I’m expecting Adams to just outright say that. That would be much easier to read, for one thing.

The human genome, therefore, is not the entire blueprint of human development. Although some genes do obviously code for some physical characteristics (such as eye color), genes alone do not contain the full blueprint. There must be something else that also contributes morphological information in addition to DNA.

The Human Genome Project, to the shock of nearly all materialists, ultimately proved exactly the opposite of what scientists had hoped. It proved that genes alone do not explain inheritance.

You didn’t actually prove anything, Mike Adams. All you did was pretend that the entire study of genetics was the same thing as a computer program, decided that the human body was too complicated for you, and said “okay, I’m done, science is a lie”. That’s not an argument. That’s a five year old throwing a tantrum because he wants his pet theory (in a non-scientific sense) to be right despite all of the evidence pointing to their being wrong.

The materialists were horrified by this finding. To this very day, they are pouring over human genome data, desperately trying to find some “meta data” that would explain all inheritance. What they refuse to acknowledge is that there is a non-physical field of inheritance patterns that functions as an overlay to the human genome, interacting with it and enhancing its scope with non-physical encoding of additional information needed to develop a complete human form.

Adams, do you, like, not know how science works? When scientists do an experiment and realize that the evidence shows that they’re wrong, science changes. Scientists don’t sit there in a dark room somewhere rubbing their hands like evil geniuses while colluding to hide DA TRUTH from the unsuspecting sheeple public.

Of course, then again, Adams is totally anti-science, so this shouldn’t be surprising.

The idea of morphic resonance infuriates materialists — and nearly all modern-day scientists are materialists — because the presence of a non-physical field of information naturally leads to the most dangerous idea of all to materialist science: the idea of consciousness.

What the flying hell? I’d use a stronger word, except for the fact that I don’t know who’s reading this blog.

But seriously. “Non-physical field of information”? What is that, an euphemism for “quantum” or “spiritual” thinking/enlightenment?

This idea that your body as a whole, as well as each cell in your body, can tap into a field of information which encodes the “memory” of what a human form is supposed to be threatens the very pillars of materialistic science, upon which nearly the entire pharmaceutical industry is based, by the way.

Because water memory (or whatever it is, but I keep thinking of water memory) totally is a thing. And anti-Big Pharma to boot!

Keep in mind that if you read about Rupert Sheldrake from any materialistic science website — including Scientific American which is 100% pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO and anti GMO labeling, by the way — you are going to read vicious attacks against Sheldrake from desperate materialists who brand morphic resonance as “magical thinking.”

GMOs have absolutely NOTHING to do with proving genetics wrong. But honestly, you and I know that it’s really a dog-whistle to the anti-science environmentalists in the world, of which there are many (Greenpeace anyone?).

This is especially comic, given that these same materialists believe the entire universe in which we live spontaneously appeared from nowhere without cause or reason through a process they call the “Big Bang.” Somehow, the big bang isn’t magical thinking to the materialists, but the idea of a non-physical field of inheritance is magical thinking. It’s almost like these people have never heard of gravity: yet another invisible field that affects all living things.

It’s almost like he’s never taken a physics class, or otherwise he’d know that vacuums are inherently unstable. Or that we have evidence for gravity, whereas we don’t have evidence for whatever woo he’s putting in the place of genetics.

But of course, who cares about reality if it gets your anti-science platform across?

Conventional genetics has no explanation for this. How does a cell “know” it’s supposed to be a specialized cell functioning as a tiny part of the whole? If every blood cell in your body contains the DNA for your entire body, how does it “know” to form itself into a blood cells and not, for example, a skin cell?

Does Adams think that genes encode for things in a vacuum?

Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance explanation provides an answer. The cell taps into a knowledge field — a non-physical pattern blueprint — and through influence with that field, the cell knows to activate only the genes that code for it to form a blood cell. The local physical genes accomplish the protein coding, but the morphic resonance field directs the pattern of which genes to activate. This is how morphic fields interact with DNA.

“God told the cells what to do and the cells did it.”

The human genome, in other words, works hand in hand with a non-physical information field that keeps physical form development organized so that the resulting form is a human. The morphic resonance field “knows” the pattern of being human because it is a pattern that has been reinforced by billions of other humans who came before you and contributed to the resonance of the field.

This explains the missing link in DNA — the fact that DNA alone cannot store the entire blueprint of the human form. The master blueprint is actually found in the non-physical morphic field. Local DNA are simply “protein builders” that follow the morphic resonance blueprint.

Two things.

  1. Adams, you never actually proved that 20,000 genes can’t hold the information needed to create human beings. You just went “body is too hard, science lied, the end”. That’s not an argument, that’s you being ignorant and lazy.
  2. Even if that WERE true (which I don’t think it is), this doesn’t mean that you can just say “oh God done it” and figure that’s the end of everything. Don’t lie to me and say that this has nothing to do with intelligent design or whatever. You’re using “sciencey” words in order to convey the idea of “quantum consciousness” and mystics and whatnot. You’re insulting your readers’ intelligence, although to be fair, if you’re a regular reader of NaturalNews and you actually believe in this stuff, you probably didn’t have that much in the first place.

I’m sorry, but seriously, it had to be said.

Everywhere across the fatally closed-minded community of materialist science, Sheldrake is considered to be worse than a demon… he is a non-believer in the Church of Materialism! And there is no greater sin to today’s cult-like science community than non-belief in materialism.

This is why Sheldrake’s ideas will be viciously attacked, demonized and denied… up until the day they are finally embraced and accepted as the “new science of life.” In a hundred years, Sheldrake will likely be remembered as far more important to science than even Charles Darwin. His ideas are not merely revolutionary, but desperately needed to advance science beyond the limiting realm of materialism. If science does not expand its scope beyond chemical structures, it will never understand life and will always remain mystified and frustrated about why genes still don’t control much in the way of inheritance.

Science is a religion! The Establishment is colluding to hide the truth! Evidence for a New World Order where lizards secretly rule the Earth!

Seriously, this “science hates new ideas” thing is getting old. Science LOVES new ideas. It’s just that you have to show evidence that said ideas are plausible. And I’m sorry, but God morphic resonance has absolutely NOTHING in plausibility and can’t be tested.

There’s a thing in the end called “Questions for faith believers in materialistic genetics”. I’ll try my best to answer them, but I’m just a layperson who’s studying for biochem, so my answers won’t be as well thought out as it could be.

Where is the gene for creativity? If creative works (songs, poems, fiction novels, etc.) are merely the work of mechanistic brains following genetic instructions, then all the lifelong works of creative individuals (musicians, artists, novelists, etc.) must somehow be encoded in the DNA before birth. Where is all this creativity encoded?

No one has ever claimed that genetics was the only factor in creating a human being. Scientists acknowledge other factors, such as environment, contribute to the mix. Genes do not solely work in a vacuum; there are always other factors involved.

How does a blood cell know to make itself into a blood cell and not a skin cell?

You kind have to be a dumbass to think that only genes act on cells in development. Scientists have already figured out that in order to induce stem cells to develop into skin, blood, liver, muscle, etc. cells, that there’s proteins and cellular signaling via growth factors involved. Again, genes do not work solely in a vacuum, but that’s what Adams and his anti-science ilk want you to think, to make it easier to impart their woo on unsuspecting readers (like you, except that you read this blog, and honestly, I think of you guys to be better than that).

Why is most physical inheritance unable to be traced to DNA? (The “heritability problem.”)

Heredity doesn’t just happen via the physical genome. There’s a branch of study in genetics called epigenetics, which deals with changes in gene expression or phenotype without changing the DNA. It has been shown that some of that is inheritable.

Of course, the woo-meisters like to misuse epigenetics to validate really weird stuff. Epigenetics isn’t something that I understand off hand, so I won’t be explaining it.

Where is the genetic code for love, compassion and cooperation, without which human civilization never would have survived?

Adams is begging the question here in this one, but he’s not a stranger to numerous logical fallacies. Of course, this question is also based on the idea that genes work in a vacuum, which it doesn’t.

If human consciousness is an illusion, as materialists claim, then it can have no impact on human behavior, which is purely mechanistic, they insist. So then why did the “illusion of consciousness” evolve in human beings if it serves no purpose? This contradicts one of the more fundamental tenants of natural selection.

Actually, scientists have begun studying the idea of a human consciousness. So Adams’ question is based on a false premise.

Again, genes do not work in a vacuum.

Are you, yourself, purely a mechanistic biological robot suffering under the illusion of consciousness? And if so, then why should we listen to anything you have to say in the first place?

One could ask the same of you, Mike Adams.

If I made any mistakes, please correct me, preferably with evidence to support your claims.


One of my friends today posted an article on how apparently, atheists are using chemtrails to kill angels. Seriously.

This was just too funny and absurd for me to pass up. So let’s MOCK!

With the scourges of typhus, malaria and dengue fever raging through communities in the 1940s, the United States government did a curious thing. They loaded up airplanes with the chemical DDT and commenced aerial spraying to wipe out the insects spreading these diseases.

Wait. So killing the disease vector that spreads deadly diseases is “curious”? Does this person, like, not know how this works? Does this author not understand that by killing the bugs, we make it that much more difficult for the disease to spread to humans?

Oh, but this is the beginning. Let’s continue.

As we know today, both DDT and Agent Orange had devastating affects on human populations.

Uh, duh? I mean, it’s not like we knew about them when we were starting out, because we didn’t know what the long term impacts are until, well, years later. Even FDA approved drugs on the market today can be withdrawn when serious side effects come up, because we know that randomized clinical trials aren’t long enough to consider effects even a few decades later. That’s how it works.

Chemtrails are the aerial spraying trails left by large aircraft, both commercial and federal, that are not associated with farming. Millions of images of these sky dispersals can be found on the internet. You will see thick plumes of dense whiteness ejected from the backs of jetliners with purposeful squirts. They are not continuous, but rather sporadic when planes reach a particular altitude. When such substances are released, they become hyper-heated in the atmosphere to attain a canopy-like distribution above targeted regions. Leaked images of these chemical containers in the bodies of large-sized aircraft regularly surface on the internet, underscoring the veracity of these claims.

You mean this?



You do realize that these are used to stimulate passengers in the cabin during flight, right? And that these are filled with water, right?

I mean, water is a chemical, so technically they’re right. But so is the air you breathe, the plastic under your fingertips, the lentil salad that I had for lunch, etc.

(More information on flight tests can be found here.)

Also, what they’re calling chemtrails are actually just contrails, which is simply condensed water vapor exhaust from an aircraft during flight. They’re quite normal.

But I digress.

In various online communities there has been vigorous debate about what chemtrails actually mean. Some believe they spread barium as a highly-sensitive electromagnetic missile defense system. Others postulate they contain compounds that attack our blood cells and ultimately reduce populations, much like the fluoridation of our water supplies. The rise in disease and other unexplained medical phenomena does strangely coincide with the popularization of chemtrails.

Mmhm, and cancer causes cell phones.

Cell phones cause cancer! Credit to xkcd.

Cancer causes cell phones! Credit to xkcd.

Yet another theory that has been gaining traction and deserves serious consideration is that America’s massive science-industrial complex is attempting a most dangerous experiment. Since Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, we have seen a grave movement towards science-based strategic thinking in all forms of national policy. Whole swathes of government have been taken over by academic PhDs with an intense obsession with scientism. From the National Science Board to the Department of Education, from NASA to the National Institute of Standards, a powerful cadre of elite intellectuals is seizing control. A common thread amongst these activist bureaucrats is a love of science over God.

What the hell is scientism? Seriously, if science is a religion now, what’s our official text? The Origin of Species? Silberberg’s General Principles of Chemistry? The Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

President George W. Bush famously fought against the scientists entrenched in his administration. At many points they promoted evolution “theory” and “global warming” over good old-fashioned common sense. They tried to uproot Christianity in our schools through activist judges. And while President Bush fought the good fight, he ultimately did not win the battle. The long line of anti-theists ruling the inner halls of power since Lyndon Johnson remained in control.

Most people also saw Bush as a bit of an idiot, but I digress.

Also, establishment clause in the First Amendment, a scientific theory has enough evidence to support it that it’s pretty much close to fact, evolution is THE strongest theory and we have with loads of evidence (the following link being a small sample of the evidence we have for evolution), anthropological climate change is happening with 97% agreement amongst climate scientists, etc.

But of course, it’s not like no one’s ever refuted evolution denial before, right? Or anthropological climate change denial.

So what is at the heart of this secret society of globalist atheism? One of their most significant concerns is the power of Faith. They despise the Glory of Jesus and the hope that He brings to countless Americans. The atheists are so insanely dedicated to their obscene cult they will try just about anything to destroy every remnant of Christian Love on this earth. As this sickening obsession was wed to advances in aerial spraying technology in the last century, one can surmise the evil compound that resulted. In this formula, it seems quite logical that the atheist’s next step would be to attempt the widespread murder of Jesus’s very Heavenly Agents of Love.

Atheism is a cult? Well, that’s something I’ve never heard before.

Also, seriously, I have homework, exams, rent payments, job interviews, chores, bills, and food that I need to worry about. Where the hell would I find time to take down Christianity? When I’m asleep? Does my atheistic existence cause you to lose your faith? If it did, how much faith did you even have in the first place?


Angels. They are much more than a Christian bedtime story. They are much more than the sweet flutterings in the ears of believers. Angels are quite literally the factory workers of faith. They are tireless and everywhere. They accomplish innumerable feats, from minor pangs of guilt to the throbbing passions of love. The angels are there to guide us, to inspire us and, ultimately, to remind us of our obligation to Jesus. The fly through the air at His beckoning. They are gentle and ever willing. We would be far less human and humane were it not for the angels. And that is exactly why atheists fear the power of angels.

And the evidence for angels is where, exactly?

Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. 

Uh, I do? So I abhor the thought of treating people with respect and embrace uttermost intolerance and paranoia of those with differing faiths (or lack thereof)?

Oh wait.

Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines.

Nihilism. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes.

I’m a drug addict? Say what?

Also, some of my friends who are into BDSM are religious, thank you very much. And not every atheist is into BDSM. And of course, BDSM is perfectly fine, so long as it’s consensual. But I digress.

Why do we have war? It’s the atheists who spread contempt of God and invite such reckless notions of communism and Islam.

Because this totally never happened.

Because this totally never happened.

As secret atheist scientists in government pursue their goals of undermining Jesus in America, it only stands to reason that they would take their battle to the skies. The aerial dogfight is likely a vicious one. Who knows what advances they have made since the days of DDT and Agent Orange. Yet fight on they do, every single day! Our heavens are coated in a thick aerosol haze of spiritual hate and this nation’s faith is sinking.

In our lifetime, the United States has been bombarded by supposedly “natural” disasters and terrorist attacks. Religion is at an all time low, while sodomy and perversion are at epic heights. Clearly the overlap of these symptoms with the widespread usage of chemtrails is more than just a coincidence. Clearly the astonishing rise of militant atheism in America must factor in. So what is the ultimate answer to the mystery of the chemtrails? Have Heaven’s angels forsaken us for such an offensive maneuver? Or are they actually losing, dying off in plumes of jetliner butchery? Surely America’s atheists in the great halls of government are asking these very same questions.


I have to wonder how much they were smoking when they came up with this stuff.

How to Not Get Doxed: A Guide



Today, I’m going to go over the ways on how you can avoid being doxed by your ideological opponents!

But first, let me define what doxing is.

dox /däx/ v.: to post a person’s personal information (e.g. full name, phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security number, places of employment, dating profiles) online on the Internet, often done with the intention of making harassing one’s target easier. Often used by those in the Men’s Right Movement in order to silence those whose opinions they do not like (often feminists).

(Okay, so I tried to come up with the right pronunciation symbols to mimic what you’d find in the dictionary. I probably failed. Sorry about that.)

Now, who wants to have their personal information up online for random people to see? After all, this is your personal information. You know, like private phone numbers, or personal email addresses. Or even just your full name. I wouldn’t want to put it online for everyone to see (Facebook notwithstanding, and even then, like most people, I use my privacy settings and make that kind of information friends only and only allow people I know decently well a spot on my friend’s list. I’ve since deactivated mine, but that’s not the point).

And of course, when the intention is to make it easier for trolls and haters to harass you and ruin your life (you know, like calling your place of employment to try to get you fired, or sending threatening letters through the mail, or leaving creepy voice messages, or even stalk and kill you), it’s pretty bad, is it not?

But of course, if you want to scare someone you don’t like (often women) on the Internet, all you need to do is to constantly send rape and death threats. Bonus points if you have some of their private information so that they could feel terrified as they go through their daily lives!

Who wants to go through that? I don’t.

So let me detail a guide on how to not be doxed on the Internet. It is my sincere hope that people will find this helpful. Full adherence to this guide is recommended for the best results, of course.

How to Not Get Doxed: A Guide

  1. If you’re of the female persuasion (cis* or trans*), don’t ever go onto the Internet.
  2. If you do go on the Internet, don’t have an opinion on the Internet.
  3. If you do have an opinion on the Internet, make sure that you’re following the status quo. Don’t go suggesting that maybe making rape threats contribute to rape culture, or joke about how you’d like to put men in their place. And definitely don’t ever decide to challenge groups that are presumed to be majority-male (e.g. gamers) into rethinking how they interact with other people on the Internet, or even to think about what their culture says about society! Assure them that you like being sexually harassed—oh, I’m sorry, hit on—by men you don’t know, even if they’re sending you messages such as “I want to put your cock into you”. Or making macros of your image and spreading it around the Internet with threatening or defamatory messages.
  4. Don’t ever put your real life personal information online. Don’t make dating profies, don’t go on social networking sites like Facebook, and don’t even hit hint at what school you go to or what your major is. Ask your employer to not put your real name online, but rather a pseudonym with a fake phone number. Ask your school if they can not mention you at all on their website, or use a picture of you as part of a promotion to encourage people to come to their campus. Etc.
  5. Don’t you dare suggest that maybe we should give recognition to women once in a while, unless you want to have threats be sent online. Really. Even on a banknote.
  6. Don’t ever get into an argument with MRAs, or use swear words in front of them.
  7. Don’t ever take part in the production of a video advertising something based off the SCUM Manifesto. Otherwise, they’ll offer a $1000 bounty for your information. Although come to think of it, if you give up your own information, would A Voice for Men give you $1000? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!
  8. Don’t be like these women and get your name on Register-Her.
  9. Don’t take down posters printed by MRA groups, even if they weren’t supposed to legally be there.
  10. Just, well, disappear. If you’re a woman, you’re better off being locked up inside your bedroom for the rest of your life, tied up so that you can’t write and silenced with duct tape on your mouth so that you can’t talk.

Just abide by these instructions and you should be perfectly okay! Thanks for reading!






Oh yeah, before I forget, </sarcasm>.

The Consumer’s Bill of Rights, Part 2

Welcome to Part 2 of a series of posts regarding the Consumer’s Bill of Rights! This post will go over Point 1, the Right to Safety, as that number was skipped during Part 1. (This was because I had already written quite a bit and I was too lazy to change it, so I left it as it is. Part 1 can be found here.) Here’s a refresher on what the Consumer Bill of Rights is, before we get started:

  1. The Right to Safety: to be protected against the marketing of goods that are hazardous to health or to life.
  2. The Right to be Informed: to be protected against fraudulent, deceitful, or grossly misleading information, advertising, labeling, or other practices, and to be given the facts needed to make informed choices.
  3. The Right to Choose: to be assured, when ever possible, access to a variety of produces and services at competitive prices, and in those industries in which competition is not workable and government regulation is substituted, an assurance of safety quality and service at fair prices.
  4. The Right to be Heard: to be assured that consumer interests will receive full and sympathetic consideration in the formulation of government policy, and fair and expeditious treatment in its administrative tribunal.

As consumers, we all want to know whether our products are safe. This is especially important in medicine, because, well, we’re taking these products either to stay healthy or to get back to being healthy. We don’t want them to hurt us, or even worse, kill us. That sort of defeats the whole purpose of taking health products.

Now how does that relate to quack medicine? After all, they’ll only sell something if it were safe… right?

Let me tell you the story of amygdalin, which in modified form is known as laetrile or Vitamin B17.

Amygdalin's chemical structure. FEAR THE CHEMICAL BONDS. FEAR IT!

Amygdalin’s chemical structure. FEAR THE CHEMICAL BONDS. FEAR IT!

Amygdalin was initially derived from bitter almonds (hence the name, which comes from the Greek for “almond”). It is also found in other plants in the genus Prunus, most notably in the pits of apricots and black cherries. If you crush the apricot pit, you can extract this chemical.

Such a sweet, innocent pit, sitting in between such delicious fruits. How can this not be a good thing?

Such a sweet, innocent pit, sitting in between such delicious fruits. How can this not be a good thing?

It is not the same as laetrile. While it shares part the same chemical structure as amygdalin, laetrile is a patented semi-synthetic chemical.

Laetrile's chemical structure. Similar to amygdalin but not the same.

Laetrile’s chemical structure. Similar to amygdalin but not the same.

Laetrile (or Vitamin B17, named as such because its inventor wanted to capitalize on the vitamin craze and hoped that by naming it as such, there would be no need to go through the FDA for new drug testing and approval) was marketed as a cancer cure in the 1950s. Even in the modern day, people think that laetrile can cure and/or prevent cancer. You can buy it on Amazon in pretty little tablets, and people are giving it glowing reviews, crediting the chemical for curing their cancerA World Without Cancer has advice on how to get as much Vitamin B17 as possible to prevent cancer, and claims that “Vitamin B-17 is one of the main sources of food in cultures such as the Eskimos, the Hunzas, the Abkasians and many more”, stating that these groups have never developed cancer (which isn’t true by the way, see here for the Eskimos. I tried to find accurate data for the Hunzas or the Abkasians, but Google-fu’s failing me, as all it’s turning up is advertisements for laetrile)There’s a page promoting Vitamin B17, calling it a “story not approved by orthodox medicine”, and claims that the medical establishment is fighting hard to keep this from the market because of politics and because Big Pharma doesn’t want to lose their profits. Another page advertising laetrile states that the FDA has banned sales of this “miracle” drug (because let’s face it, it’s not a supplement, but a drug) even though it’s “perfectly natural and safe” and recommends people to purchase it in Mexico or eat apricot kernels (consuming at least 24 and up to 40 of these kernels a day!) or eat berry and apple seeds.

Wait. The last page states that the FDA banned sales of laetrile, and mentions that people can’t claim that the drug can cure cancer.

Why? If this was really the miracle drug that can cure cancer, wouldn’t we be all over it by now? I mean, seriously, we’re spending millions and millions of dollars in cancer research trying to find better treatments and/or a cure, and this is just our tax dollars from the National Cancer Institute. Cancer is complicated, yo! If laetrile really could cure cancer, we’d be able to use that money to, I don’t know, spend it on AIDS research perhaps? It’d be a huge savings a year, we wouldn’t have to subject people to radiation and chemo, and no one would ever die from cancer, ever! Plus, that’s one of the big health problems facing humans solved, and doctors would be quite happy to recommend it and use it on their patients, because who wants to put someone through unnecessary suffering if this cheap, miracle drug was just sitting in that apricot pit left over from lunch? Am I right?

Something doesn’t sound right.

If we had the cure from cancer in apricots the entire time, we’d be using it. We wouldn’t be spending money researching for cancer cures, we’d be using it on something else. Doctors don’t want to put people through unnecessary treatment, it wouldn’t be worth the additional risk for just a small sliver of benefit. If we can cure cancer without all of the risks that surgery and radiation and chemo have, we’d be using it, because honestly, doctors aren’t evil. They want to keep us healthy, and they don’t want to put us through more risk than we need to be to do it.

So if that’s the case, why has it been rejected by the medical community and banned for sale in the United States by the FDA?

Does it have something to do with the fact that metabolizing laetrile creates hydrogen cyanide, which, uh, yeah, is a poison that can kill you?

Oh yeah. I guess I should have mentioned that part first. Eating apricot pits can cause cyanide poisoning. Really. Apricot pits, sold in the US as a snack imported from Pakistan, have been withdrawn from stores in the US because eating one bag of those pits (8 oz worth) would give you twice the lethal dosage of cyanide for an adult.

And oh, yeah, it also doesn’t work outside of a Petri dish. Just saying!

So… what we’ve just seen being sold on Amazon is a bottle of cyanide poisoning waiting to happen. What the hell? How is this possible?

Marketing. Lots and lots of marketing. And media attention. And more marketing. The people behind Quackwatch (in the aforementioned link) can explain that better than I could, as a layperson studying in the biochemical field.

“But people shouldn’t be selling things that can kill us! Do they not know that they’re killing people?!”

Well, yeah, they shouldn’t. And to that end, the FDA made the right move by banning the sale of laetrile in the US. But unfortunately, laetrile is still touted as a cancer cure, and people have been getting around the ban by buying it overseas or purchasing the apricot kernels and extracting the pits to eat. The idea that laetrile can cure cancer just won’t die, and unfortunately, it’s killing people.

But you wouldn’t know it by looking at the sleek infomercials for this stuff.

As to whether they know that it’s killing people… I’m of the belief that most of the people who are touting laetrile are people who actually think that the stuff works, and that they’re unwilling to believe that it’s a poison. Or they know that it’s a poison, but try to make excuses to get around that. Many of them might have known someone with cancer who took it alongside conventional treatment and gotten well. But instead of crediting the conventional treatment, they credited the laetrile.

Yay for post hoc ergo propter hoc (shortened to just post hoc).

But not really. Actually, it’s quite unfortunate, especially for desperate cancer patients, who might not know about the dangers of laetrile until it’s too late.

Part 2 is complete. Stay tuned for Part 3, sooner or later.

Deconstruct the Male – A Parody in 2000 Words

I’m working on part 2 for the Consumer’s Bill of Rights thing, but I wanted to do some more research. In the meantime, I hear that people really like my parodies, so here’s another one that I wrote (well, with some minor edits and an additional sentence at the end).

This is in parody to “Deconstruct the Female” by Christopher in Oregon, who went into a huge rant on how women are all gross, how their vaginas smelled, and how women *gasp!* get old and *gasp!* POOP.

All in all, your typical “women are all naturally ugly and I don’t want to fuck her!” misogynistic rant. You should totally read it, and then come back to read this parody.

Or, of course, you could listen to the dramatic reading of this on SoundCloud here (courtesy of Quietuus, whose dramatic reading made my housemates laugh).

I will repeat this again for the sake of anyone who’s reading this that THIS. IS. A. PARODY. I will also state that this is not my opinion of men.

Without further ado…

Deconstructing the Male: Is This What You Want?


I am luckier than most people in retrospect. One of the biggest things in my favor was when my parents warned me about MEN and their inability to stay committed to a woman. They were very vocal in expressing the fact that men would only want to bang you and then toss you aside, leaving you with only a series of unpaid bills in your name, lost time and money, and a child in your belly. For this, I am eternally grateful. All men are inherently stupid, lazy, disgusting slobs who play women, spending money like water while loafing around the house drinking beer and getting a beer gut, and only caring about themselves, with no exceptions. This view is also echoed in the various sitcoms of the day and in the past, such as in Family Guy and the Simpsons, if you’re still into that show after the tenth season (silly people, don’t you know that that show has gone downhill since?).

Probably the most important bit of information my parents gave me was that men do NOT age well. They kept telling me about how if I was able to avoid hitching up with men until I die, that I would be “home free”. I never understood this at first, but now I know what they meant. It’s not about the sex drive, but something more important. Men do not age well. Their looks and their intelligence head straight for the gutter as they age. The older they get, the more they deteriorate. I’m not talking when he hits fifty, or even forty.

I’m talking twelve. Maybe sooner.

This isn’t just the issue of how their faces become less cute. I recall reading this blog that tactfully said that men become disgusting slobs and dumbnuts when they turn forty. It said that men won’t really be able to regain their youth and their smarts. I thought “Yeah, they won’t really regain their good looks or their intelligence. Maybe a disgusting smell, but nothing positive.”

This is one of the greatest secrets that few people talk about, and young women are never warned about. Men get ugly and dumb. BUTT ugly and SUPER dumb, not to mention EXTREMELY resentful. Even if they win Nobel Prizes or become sex symbols, the fact does not change that they will start to degrade and post on the Spearhead.

The Spearhead.

Oh, gods. Have you taken a look at the stuff that men post over there? Have you ever read one of their articles, or the highly upvoted comments of many of the regulars? A ghastly sight. They post about how as men, they are the most oppressed and most disadvantaged group in the world. Just the other day I caught an article by a man named W. F. Price where he claimed that one can easily debunk the idea of privilege by asking those who speak of it why the non-whites are not avoiding white neighborhoods or why women are seeking to enter male institutions. It’s like trying to explain and correct a creationist who claims that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. I’m sometimes afraid that this amount of stupid and hatred will jump out and devour me.


Ponder his beliefs. In all likelihood he calls himself an atheist who refuses to follow dogma, while they turn around and accept misogyny uncritically as if it were fact. He confuses atheism with skepticism, and all the while he misuses terms and abuses the dictionary and the thesaurus in such a way that Stephanie Meyer would cry in horror.

His hatred and his fear stem from his stupidity. He refuses to use his free time more productively, preferring to write up anti-woman screeds on the Internet and getting drunk on absinthe. I was discussing men with a few friends of mine, and they all agreed that these men are the most unintelligent yet. A man’s brain will quickly turn into mush in short order. It rarely, if ever, becomes full and whole again.

Contemplate his abs. Oh, yes. Women are always after a six pack, foolishly lusting after that sculpted physique.


They’re just muscles, hard and uncomfortable shapes that recall their fatal undoing. Very few men’s abs look like the ones you see in movies. Normally, they’re NOT attractive at all. They are often hidden under layers and layers of fat, flabby and squishy like a rotten orange. As these men get older, these sag more and more, becoming more and more like overgrown and overripe berries than anything. And they will sag to the floor, by which case his man boobs and his skin and everything else is falling towards the floor. It’s a race to the center of the earth, and everything heads south, my friends. Never forget this.

I’m going to be blunt. Have you ever smelled their cock? Seriously, I mean smell his cock in their unwashed, natural state? Really stuck your nose up there and take a deep breath?


Oh gods. The stench could destroy the nasal passages of bloodhounds from over thirty miles away. To this day I swear that there were maggots crawling away on the head of his cock and the sack that is the testicles. Sometimes when biking down the street I come across chicken feces. We have a lot of them here, and when they’ve been sitting and stewing there in the shade and water, you can smell them a long way off even at eight miles an hour.

Cocks tend to be even nastier.

I have long said that cocks are the magnets to filth and disease, and that I would never allow myself to let any part of my anatomy get close towards such a thing, let alone touch it or—gasp!—letting it inside of me. With the odds that a man has HPV, this statement is even more true today.

Nature has a clever way of warning us of danger. Smell. If you encounter something that smells bad or rancid, you’re to run like the wind, get away from that thing and keep it out of your sight.

Warning, diseases and filth ahead! Danger!

You are being warned that something is filled with disease, that it will sicken you and make you ill. Definitely not fit for human consumption.

Consider what comes out of his cock while he masturbates. It’s not just sperm, ladies. It’s sugar and it’s water and it’s chemicals that will neutralize your vagina’s natural pH, and all of it drying out and caking around that old, crusty tube sock. Or even worse, inside of the fleshlights that they love so much, all while lusting over images of impossible woman, and imagining himself having his way with her. That crust off his favorite wanking toy isn’t going to stay on that toy, you know.

Don’t believe me? Dive into their trashcans, or visit one of the numerous websites dedicated to masturbation, sex toys, and pornography, and read their stories. It’s enough to make your vaginas wither and dry up in horror.

And they wonder why so many women refuse to have anything to do with these men…

Think about his urethra, his rectum. Yes, I’m talking about his number one and his number two respectfully. Think about their location on the male anatomy. His number one is the part that goes inside of you, and his number two is right there behind. Do you really want to imagine him banging you with the same instrument that he uses to excrete his liquid waste, or you touching the same place where he just made a big dump?


How carefully does he clean himself? Do you know? Of course not, you’re taking his hygiene on faith, and we all know how great men are with their personal hygiene, how we can all trust them.

Look at his face. Look at his mouth. That mouth spews out hatred and uttermost ignorance upon every subject that he has ever come across. It is a filthy mouth, bathed in the alcohol that he constantly downs and anointed with the potty words and slurs that come out of it whenever someone correctly refutes his mishmash of letters that he calls an argument. His mouth can also spew out chunks of rotten food, ooze mucus and pus from the sores within his gums, and reek of the WORST breath this side of the Milky Way.

Look at his eyes. They brighten when he thinks that alcohol or money or bitches are on his way, but they dull at all other times. Brighten? I should have said wilt. Their eyes are dead, bleary and unable to see anything other than his alcohol, his unearned money, and the bright screen of the monitor as he reads and agrees with misogynistic screeds on the Internet while staring at caricatures and images of impossible perfection that he calls woman and rubbing his filthy dick with his crusty two year old tube sock.

Are you attracted at this, ladies? Is this what you want?

Have you seen how his eyes sag and become exhausted, red eyes and a glazed look, while his main hand is thicker for having rubbed one out every single day? Oh, not just one. Several. Multiple times. Enough to fill your one cup measure with, and all thick and gooey and crusting.

Take a look at the modern day woman. The woman, she shines with life. She is in the peak of her happiness, full of potential and radiating a glow of happiness as she learns that she is to be promoted after several years of hard, fulfilling work. She is alive, she is vibrant and intelligent.

Then look at the modern day man.

He looks like a rotten tomato. He is a corpse, bulging stomach and smelly butt crack and hairy ears and nose. He is death personified, a living example of decomposition. If you look closely, you can even see the stalks of fungi growing out of his orifices and down below on his feet.

Is this what you want ladies? Is this the sexy ideal?

He is alive, but decomposing. Is this what you want?

Men are even more disgusting than women. Don’t believe me? Walk into one of their locker rooms, and take a sniff of that manly goodness, of power and of strength! Oh, it’s making you gag and wishing that you lost your sense of smell? That is the essence of the human male. Go to some random single man’s house, lounging in that man cave of his, take a closer look at his face, pay attention to what he’s watching and what he’s approving of both on the telly and online. Oh, you want to gouge your eyes out and pierce your eardrums to save you from that horror? That is the essence of the human male.

Understand that your sex drive is irrational. It is designed to get you to breed, and once that’s done, his drive diminishes and he will leave you to hump yet another unsuspecting woman while you’re stuck with the bill. Nature doesn’t want him to stay faithful, nature wants him to hump as many women as he can and spread his disgusting man seed around.

Stop and analyze why you are attracted to men. You’re being manipulated to accept a partner who is unable to commit, unable to stay clean, and unwilling to grow up. He will hate you and despise you, and he will never respect you. Consider the other examples from nature, where the males all abandon the woman, or who die, leaving her alone with his offspring. They become useless pieces of shit.

Is this what you want?

Understand what the male is. Understand his motivations, understand his nature.

Despise the male. Hate him, don’t lust after him and his kind.

Avoid pornography. Avoid erotic novels. Reject all premises of needing a man to complete you and live. Enjoy life.

You can choose to enslave yourself to a man who will never respect you. Or you can forsake them and let them die in their own filth and stupidity.

The choice is yours.




The original parody I wrote can be found here on Manboobz.

I must state again that THIS. IS. A. PARODY. I must also state again that this is not my actual opinion of men.

That is all.

Women (or the Lack of Them) in STEM

Note: this is an expansion of two comments that I made on Manboobz. [1], [2]

How it Works - credit to xkcd.

How misogyny works in the STEM fields. Credit to xkcd. Shared under xkcd’s Creative Commons license.

As a student studying for a STEM-field related major and aiming for a STEM career, I’m a member of a small group of women who are pursuing something science or technology related. A study done in Illinois shows that about about 39.5% of women coming out of Illinois high school are attempting majors in STEM (see page 8 for the table). Women make up to less than a quarter of the workforce in STEM (sauce), and in many STEM fields (engineering mostly), women make up less than 10% of the workforce.

(For the record, I’m doing biochem, aiming for either medicine or biotechnology, haven’t decided which one yet. I can totally see myself doing biotechnology for the rest of my life, genetically modifying organisms for GOOD. Yes, anti-GMO people, I know you hate them and I know you think that they’ll kill you or whatever. You’ll probably hate me for thinking of pursuing biotech. But GMOs are perfectly safe. However, that’s a different subject, possibly a topic for a future post. Stay tuned.)

The gender disparity between men and women in STEM is so wide that numerous groups have gotten together to try to discuss and resolve the issue. After all, women are a little more than half the world, and they are half of the Internet (rules 28-30 of the Internet be damned! Misogyny on the Internet will be another topic.). And yet in the US, 18% of computer science degrees are awarded to women, 22% of software engineers are female, and 6% of CEOs in the top 100 tech companies are women. And while I’m not actually studying for a major in computer technology, this difference is so huge that when a female programmer shows up, she is often-times the token female, and is often the target of misogyny and unwanted sexual harassment and advances. It’s such a big problem in Linux that someone had to write up an entire page on the do’s and don’t’s of encouraging new female programmers.

But why? Why does this disparity exist? And why are women often discouraged from majoring in STEM?

Part of the problem might stem from the experiences described by the tech journalist mother whose daughter was discouraged from majoring and making a career in computer programming, despite the fact that the mother had encouraged her and the fact that the daughter in question was very knowledgeable, extremely bright, and well connected. In all likelihood, she would have succeeded and done well. But because of misogyny and harassment that went either unnoticed or ignored by the male computer programming teacher, she refused to take more programming classes in one semester, and no amount of encouragement will ever get her to come back.

Women are the subject of sexual harassment and of violent threats. But why?

Is it because these men do not see women as equals? After all, for most of human history, women were seen as inferiors, as property, as vessels for one-sided sexy times, as a dependent, as like a child. Women are objectified, their bodies and the promise of sex being used to sell things from cars to body wash for men (Axe commercials anyone?). The Bible is highly misogynistic, with passages punishing women for losing their virginity, passages declaring her unclean during her period and after pregnancy, passages requiring her to marry her rapist if he refuses to pay her virgin price (but it’s only rape if she cried out while she was being raped of course!).

Laws were in place for much of the 18th and 19th century denying married women the right to her own property, the right to vote, the right to keep her wages. She was expected to get married, and expected to take care of the home and care for babies. She was in the care of her father, and then her husband, and finally her sons; she never really got a chance to do things herself. Only if there were no men around (and if she was single) was she able to achieve some semblance of independence.

Women were denied entry to numerous institutions, denied access to many careers, especially science-related fields such as medicine. Elizabeth Blackwell was only accepted into medical school in the US by a fluke of chance — the dean took her acceptance up for a vote, and if one male student (the male being superfluous at the time) objected, she would have been denied entry. The male students there thought it a joke and unanimously voted to accept her. If a woman achieved, she was not given credit, hidden by all of the male faces that accepted the awards and the acclaim for her work (see: Rosalind Franklin). Recognition for her work might take decades to surface; Franklin’s work was acknowledged as hers 25 years later, and that was buried under Watson’s descriptions of his negative regard for her in his book The Double Helix. By then she was dead.

Women were thought to be too stupid, too irrational, too emotional, too fragile, and hence all of the sexism and misogyny and restrictions regarding her agency made sense. Women are seen as bodies, sex objects, and hence all of the men feel entitled to treat her as a potential date/sex buddy and not as a coworker. If she refuses, it’s a insult to him and she must be a bitch!

Unfortunately, this attitude STILL exists today. And why? Because they were (and still are by many misogynists) seen as inferior and as sex objects.

And unfortunately this is the reason why women are often discouraged from STEM.

Throughout history, if women did something of note, her contributions were hidden and credit was given to the men. If she failed, she represented all women, the face of inferiority and stupidity as shown in the xkcd comic that opens this post.

In science and history classes, we hear a large amount of amazing men who contributed to science and technology, making civilization better. We know of Crick and Watson, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford, Mendel, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. But where are the women? Where is Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, Lise Meitner, Emmy Noether, and others?

The one female scientist that everyone knows about is Marie Curie. But is she the only person that we should be looking up to as women wanting to work in STEM?

I think not.

We can totally do better in encouraging women to take on STEM.

Give us Lovelace, give us Hopper, Meitner, Noether. Give us encouragement. Treat us as people, as equals working for the same goal. Give us credit for our work. Recognize the women who worked in (and improved) STEM throughout history. Treat us as individuals with distinct personalities, not as representatives of an entire monolithic group. Treat us as your fellow coworkers, not as your potential date.

And leave the misogyny and the sexist attitudes at home.

The Consumer’s Bill of Rights, Part 1

[I’m thinking of making this a multi-part series, mainly because I realized that this is going to be a pretty long blog post if I went through all of the points at once. I realized this while I was in the middle of writing this, so yeah… um, so it’s going to be a bit out of order. Sorry about that.

This post will go over point two of the Consumer’s Bill of Rights.]

So today, I had to go on campus to attend an orientation that’s part of the hiring process for a job (I’m crossing my fingers for that one!). While I was there, I picked up a book that I had on reserve — Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions.

The copy that I checked out is the 4th Edition, so some of the information in there is outdated. For one thing, the copyright is from 1989, well before the widespread use of the Internet and the blogosphere. For another thing, some of the data in here is a bit old.

Nevertheless, quackery NEVER gets old, and I was curious to see what were the big snake oils at the time.

Old, outdated 4th edition copy of this text. You can get an updated version on Amazon (just search it, it'll show up).

Old, outdated 4th edition copy of this text. You can get an updated version on Amazon (just search it, it’ll show up). It’s by the leading skeptics of the modern day too, and it should be an interesting read if you’re curious.

(I hope the library won’t get mad at me for accidentally dropping some food on its pages. It fell on the margins and not on the text, and I wiped it off, and there’s barely any marks, but if any librarian knew that I did that, they would totally freak.)

Anyways, the text went over the Consumer Bill of Rights. If you didn’t know, the Consumer Bill of Rights was coined by John F. Kennedy sometime in the 1960s, and it was meant to help consumers make smart decisions and to keep sellers from scamming them. You might have come across them in an economics textbook somewhere.

The Consumer Bill of Rights are as follows:

  1. The Right to Safety: to be protected against the marketing of goods that are hazardous to health or to life.
  2. The Right to be Informed: to be protected against fraudulent, deceitful, or grossly misleading information, advertising, labeling, or other practices, and to be given the facts needed to make informed choices.
  3. The Right to Choose: to be assured, when ever possible, access to a variety of produces and services at competitive prices, and in those industries in which competition is not workable and government regulation is substituted, an assurance of safety quality and service at fair prices.
  4. The Right to be Heard: to be assured that consumer interests will receive full and sympathetic consideration in the formulation of government policy, and fair and expeditious treatment in its administrative tribunal.

Safety, freedom of information, choice, and to be listened to. Now doesn’t that sound awesome? As a consumer, you want to have choices. You want whatever it is you’re purchasing to be safe (although there’s nothing there about them being effective, sadly enough). You want to know exactly what you’re getting. And you want to be able to have your concerns redressed and listened to by the government.

Now how does this relate to medicine?

The Internet is a wonderful and a terrible thing. It’s awesome, because if you want to check to see if a treatment (or whatever) is safe (or whatever), you can just Google it and there is a large database of information just waiting for you. It’s terrible, because if you want to check to see if a treatment (or whatever) is safe (or whatever), you can just Google it and there is a large database of misinformation just waiting for you.

Freedom of speech unfortunately allows people to spread misinformation on the Internet. That’s why if you, let’s say, decide to vaccine safety, you’re going to get a large amount of misinformation as well as the good stuff.

Can you tell which one is the anti-vac site? Google results accurate as of 23 September 2013, 5:28 AM UST.

Can you tell which one is the anti-vac site? Google results accurate as of 23 September 2013, 5:28 AM UST.

And of course, if you Google something like vaccine side effects

Can you find the anti-vac site? Google results current as of 23 September 2013, 5:32 AM UST.

Can you find the anti-vac site? Google results current as of 23 September 2013, 5:32 AM UST.

And this is just for vaccines.

Now, you really do want to be informed about safety, especially in medicine. Obviously, if you take something that has a pretty good risk of killing you (antineoplastons or Vitamin B17 in lieu of conventional treatment for cancer anyone?), well, you’re screwed. You really want to know that it’s going to kill you, before you take it. Your freaking LIFE is on the line people, duh.

But of course the quacks of the world think that BIG PHARMA is going to kill you on purpose and that the science community is hiding important information. It’s a huge conspiracy theory, how the ESTABLISHMENT is conspiring against you, the lowly consumer, and that only those who have taken the RED PILL (or who have a clinic in Mexico or some stupid thing like that) know the truth!

So kind of like the MRAs in a way. Hah.

Anyways, because there are a large amount of people who are willing to lie or mislead people into not vaccinating their children because VACCINES have TOXINS and we need to GREEN OUR VACCINES and whatever, these people have been successful in misleading millions of parents to not vaccinate. This leads to the loss of herd immunity, more epidemics of preventable diseases, and a higher difficulty in eradicating many of these diseases from the wild (e.g. polio).

How can you root out the misinformation from the legit information? As a layperson, your eyes are likely to glaze over when you see a study with lots of scary statistics and data. You don’t have the training needed to evaluate the information, make sense of the data, or judge whether the study is flawed or not.

And even the government sometimes eats up bullshit. See: NCCAM and anything related to conventional and alternative medicine.

So what can you do?

Well, there are a few things you can do. For starters, you can see whether something is too good to be true. If there’s a medicine out there that claims to be a cure-all, it’s most likely bullshit. If any medicinal remedy has the word “quantum” in it, you can discard that, that’s bull. Anything related to Jenny McCarthy or Andrew Wakefield, bull. “Scientific establishment is suppressing this information from the public!” Bull. Testimonials instead of hard data? Bull. Studies with a small sample size (like maybe 12 participants?), terrible controls, terrible placebo, terrible blinding procedure? Most likely bull; it’s at the very least a very shitty study. Too many words that don’t really make any sense? Bull. Lots of scare quotes and ALL CAPS and whatnot? Probably bull, but you might want to check. Something from NaturalNews, InfoWars, Free Republic? Bull, and often times extremely, extremely stupid. And/or funny, if you think about it.

I think you get the idea.

Look for facts, Google whatever you need to know, but beware of misinformation.

And that’s it for part 1! Stay tuned for part 2 (which I’ll post when I have the time).

A Passage from the Red Pill Scriptures

Okay, so no opening “hello world” post. Otherwise I’d never make any posts!

Anyways, I write things for fun. This is something I wrote up as a joke on Manboobz. I hope you enjoy.


From the Red Pill Scripture’s Book of Genesis, 1:1-36

In the beginning, a singularity came to be, which soon caused the creation of matter and anti-matter. The anti-matter and the matter came to battle with one another and the matter prevailed. And this was good.

Now there was matter in the form of quirks quarks and other quantum things. So they came together and became atoms, which soon became attracted to other atoms to become greater and greater masses. Some atoms came together in such a way that they fused and made more and more different kinds of matter. And this was good.

Soon, some of these greater masses—named “stars”—began to explode or collapse as they found less and less energy to smash matter together. These star remnants floated around and eventually came together to form things called “planets”. And this was good.

Eventually, a series of reactions came to be on one of these planets known as “Earth”, causing preliminary life to form upon the earth. This preliminary life eventually evolved to become members of various kingdoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria. And this was good.

The Kingdom of Animalia separated into various further groups, eventually giving rise to certain animals such as the lobster, the cow, the pig, the horse, the dog, and the human. And this was good.

The humans gave rise to a male and a female, and they came to know each other. Through this, they populated Earth, and became the caregivers of this planet. The female was a gentle caregiver, willing to stay in the kitchen and make sandwiches all day, while the male went out to bring home the bacon. The male ruled over the female and the planet, and they lived together in harmony for centuries. And this was good.

One day, a female decided that she was not going to take part in this harmony anymore. She began to demand more and more autonomy from the male. He, the foolish man, began to grant her this power—feminism—and she soon established a matriarchy. She now ruled over the male and began to exert her power in unwise ways, destroying the harmony that once was there, and hiding it through brainwashing. And this was bad.

In the meanwhile, a bottle of red pills was hidden, open only to the matriarchy’s leaders and forbidden for all males. Soon, the male found this bottle of red pills. Lo and behold, he took one of these red pills, although it had been forbidden, and his eyes were opened to both good and evil. He saw that evil had taken a hold of this world and made it chaotic, and swore to fix this and return to the harmony of the centuries past. And this was good.

This male began to meet with other males, and they all partook of the forbidden red pill, awakening to know what the female matriarchy already knew—that the world that they have lived in was chaotic and disharmonious. They began to come together and attempt to fix this, by defying their female leaders. Some of them ran away, in order to hide themselves from the female gaze. Others stayed in this world, seducing and wrecking the leaders from the inside out. They communicated with each other, creating a place of harmony called the manosphere. And lo and behold, this was good to their eyes.

Edit: Fixed a science based mistake. This is what happens when someone who doesn’t fully understand quantum physics tries to write something that’s more scientifically accurate. Oops. *blushes* Thanks Athywren for correcting it!