Big Dust


Red wine is bad for your health, experts reveal in a new report.

In a u-turn, Government experts have dismissed the supposed health benefits of wine and are set to rewrite the rule book on the nation’s alcohol consumption, according to reports.

A landmark report by Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies due to be published on Friday will destroy the long-held belief that red wine can cut the risk of cancer, heart disease and memory loss when drunk in moderation, the Sun reported.

I wonder if this is a u-turn since the report last year, which said the complete opposite:

Research conducted by the University of Alberta in Canada has found that health benefits in resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, are similar to those we get from exercise.

Red wine over a heavy session on the cross-trainer? Now that’s something we can definitely get onboard with.

According to lead researcher, Jason Dyck, these findings will particularly help those who are unable to exercise. Resveratrol was seen to improve physical performance, heart function and muscle strength in the same way as they’re improved after a gym session.

“I think resveratrol could help patient populations who want to exercise but are physically incapable,” he says.

“Resveratrol could mimic exercise for them or improve the benefits of the modest amount of exercise that they can do.”

I’ve long since ceased to pay any attention to any of this sort of health advice, particularly when advice from one ‘expert’ is immediately contradicted by another ‘expert’. After all, they can’t both be right.  Clearly one of them isn’t an ‘expert’ or even an ‘acknowledged authority’. But which one?

Too likely neither of them are experts. And they can both be ignored.

It’s easy to sit on the fence when the boffins disagree with each other. But what about when all the boffins agree? Can you go on ignoring them then. If they all agree, shouldn’t you start paying attention to them?

I think something like this has happened with CO2-driven global warming, and Smoking Causes Lung Cancer. All the experts and pundits and authorities are agreed. And this is probably why so many people think that CO2 is driving global warming and that smoking causes lung cancer: all the experts agree. And they can’t disagree with all the experts, can they?

In fact, in both cases there are (and always have been) dissenters from the expert consensus. But in both cases the dissenters (or ‘deniers’) have been shouted down or otherwise marginalised. If you don’t believe in CO2-driven global warming, you won’t get a job in climate science. And most likely if you don’t believe that smoking causes lung cancer, you won’t get a job in the medical profession.

I think if you see dissenters being shouted down, you can be fairly sure that those who’re shouting them down aren’t interested in open debate, and probably have something to hide. Same when dissenters are demonised, as Tobacco Control does with tobacco companies (and now also tobacco smokers). That’s another way of preventing open debate, and again suggests they’ve got something to hide.

But if the experts are all agreed, and dissenters aren’t being demonised or shouted down, do you have to go along with the consensus?

I don’t see why. In a lot of areas of science – physics and chemistry – there is just such a consensus, and yet people are free to dissent. They might come up with a different idea.

I came across a graph of temperature during the past 60 million year Tertiary era


a few weeks ago, and started wondering why the Earth had been steadily cooling throughout that period. It reminded me of all the rock trains that I’ve constructed over the past 3 years in my search for a companion of asteroid DA14 that could have landed on Chelyabinsk on the same day as DA14 passed close to the Earth (I found it in the end: it was following 25 million km behind DA14, and made a close approach to the Earth on 15 Feb 2009, and thereafter went round the Sun three times in 4 years, before arriving over Chelyabinsk on pretty much the exactly correct radiant, at exactly the right time, on 15 Feb 2013). I began to wonder whether there might be some very long period dust trains that periodically pass through the solar system and cause gradually increasing shading of the Earth as they extend in length. There might be dozens of such dust trails, with orbital periods of thousands of years. When they all arrive together, there are periods of cooling – ice ages -, and when they arrive separately, there’s warming – like the current interglacial we are enjoying. Might it be possible to reconstruct the underlying pattern of dust trains in much the same way that complex pieces of music can be broken down into combinations of a number of simple sine waves?

That’s my new hypothesis. And I’ve already started work on it. But I don’t think anyone is going to call me a ‘denier’ or a shill for Big Dust. Not yet, anyway.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Big Dust

  1. cherie79 says:

    Does anyone actually pay the slightest attention to these ‘experts’? I don’t know anyone who does. It is so bad now that the word expert has come to mean someone to ignore and who is paying them. I am so glad I grew up before all this nonsense started and didn’t worry about imaginary dangers.

    • prog says:

      Does anyone actually pay the slightest attention to these ‘experts’?

      MSM, which dutifully regurgitates all this rubbish. The irony is that there’s a real news goldmine just below the surface.

      Then again, I have great difficulty understanding the mindset of a huge section of the public who lap up this shit. Not only in real life, but also as avid followers of hospital dramas. What kind of person actually finds soaps about suffering entertaining? And other soaps, such as Eastenders, where every character seems to have some sort of ongoing crisis.

      • Tony says:

        And these soap operas seem to have a thriving local community pub at the centre. Utter fairytale nonsense. Most of these pubs were forcibly shut down by the zealots and those that remain are struggling to survive as restaurants/creches etc.

  2. waltc says:

    OT getting in early on this thread, may I urge everyone here to write a comment against the US Housing Authority proposal to ban smoking nationwide in all public housing. The plan comes complete with eviction for smokers (this would evict our friend Judy Ariel) and even includes a ban in single stand-alone public housing homes on the grounds that it’s “equal treatment.” The comment period closes in a few days and it’s stacked (5o-1) by pro-ban public housing admins and public healthists and activists who’ve collected (and then scanned into pdf attachments) semi-literate handwritten letters from ph residents swearing that their colds, corns and dandruff are caused by shs. Can we at least make a showing?

    At this pt I’d say anyone, even non-Americans can play. You can make up a name, if you have to give a zip code, here are a few: Santa Monica CA, 90403; Alexandia VA, 22307; Hyattsville MD, 20781; Austin TX , 78722; Charlotte NC, 28227(that’s North Carolina)

    Here’s the link to the comment form!searchResults;rpp=25;po=25;s=FR-5597-P-02;fp=true

  3. Rose says:

    Old news.

    Drink limits ‘useless’

    “Guidelines on safe alcohol consumption limits that have shaped health policy in Britain for 20 years were “plucked out of the air” as an “intelligent guess”.

    The Times reveals today that the recommended weekly drinking limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 for women, first introduced in 1987 and still in use today, had no firm scientific basis whatsoever.”

    Well, we can’t have that.

    Guidelines For Alcohol Consumption Are Inadequate For Cancer Prevention

    “The WHO International Agency of Research on Cancer has stated, based on evidence, that alcohol is carcinogenic in both animals and humans. Several evaluations of this agency as well the joint 2007 report of the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research warned of the link between alcohol and cancers in the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon-rectum and breast cancers. Based on the evidence, there is no level of alcohol consumption for which cancer risk is null

    “Considering our current knowledge of the relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, national health authorities should be aware of the possible legal consequences of promoting drinking guidelines that allow consumers to believe that drinking at low or moderate levels is without risk

    Well it worked so well with getting governments to bring in smoking bans, it looks like once again “the date of guilty knowledge” has now past.

    Belatedly the CMO reacts.

    8 Jan 2016
    “New advice from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) slashes recommended drinking limits for men in line with those for women, and says that there is no safe level of alcohol at all.”
    http: //

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      The whole progressive movement is collapsing. But still these idiots keep on trucking with their blinders on trying to ignore the big political shift now in full swing.

  4. Roobeedoo2 says:

    ‘Big Dust’? Sounds exciting!

    dust (n.)
    Old English dust, from Proto-Germanic *dunstaz (cognates: Old High German tunst “storm, breath,” German Dunst “mist, vapor,” Danish dyst “milldust,” Dutch duist), from PIE *dheu- (1) “dust, smoke, vapor” (cognates: Sanskrit dhu- “shake,” Latin fumus “smoke”). Meaning “that to which living matter decays” was in Old English, hence, figuratively, “mortal life.”

  5. prog says:

    This any good? Seems to be a long term regular cycle . Also that CO2 fluctuations slightly shadow temperature changes, which seem to rise and fall as a result of changes of dust levels. Bar the increase in dust c.65m years ago that may be the result of the Chicxulub asteroid impact that probably wiped out all the dinos.

    • petesquiz says:

      Interesting graphs that give a great overview of the actual cycles in the earth’s climate. The current alarmists only take the last 200 – 300 years of records which is absolute madness.

      One reason that CO2 concentration follows warming is because, as the oceans warm up they can hold less dissolved CO2 and so release it to the atmosphere.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Thanks. I hadn’t seen the list of periods and events in climate history.

      Where does it say dust levels increased 65 m yrs ago?

      • prog says:

        My bad – the x axis is 1000s of years (not millions), so these data only go back 400,000 years. Still, quite a nice correlation, bar the dust increase c.65,000 years ago

  6. petesquiz says:

    When I heard the announcement about alcohol I also had an intense feeling of despair. Not that I would be cutting down on my consumption of booze, but the despair was for the continuing disrepute that science is falling into. Science should be a bastion of reason, truth and offer good advice, but it has been hijacked by self-serving crooks and fraudsters who use it to bully people into their way of behaving.

    Be it alcohol, tobacco, climate, sugar, obesity or any of the other things that supposedly harm us, these neo-puritans abuse science to make their points and seemingly have the world’s media on their side. It has to end soon, surely!

    Just one final point – I’d like to start a campaign to get rid of the term nanny state and replace it with the much more accurate (in my opinion) BULLY state. Nanny always did have the best interests of the child, at heart, but the way these antis behave isn’t really for our good it is just so that they can gain power and wealth for themselves which makes them bullies. (Also, to me, nanny state sounds quite innocuous, whereas bully state sounds much more unpleasant and is closer to the truth!)

    • Roobeedoo2 says:

      ‘Bully’ originally was a term for ‘sweetheart’ so that can be spun into ‘a domestic’

      What they’re doing is banal… the banality of evil…

      Oh yes, Clicky, never forget ;)

      • petesquiz says:

        That was back in the 1530’s (i.e. half a millennium ago!) I don’t think anyone now associates the word bully with a nice person! Interestingly in the same article it does say that it might have a connection with “protector of a prostitute” which is a good use in the terms I was thinking.

        These people are protecting those that have prostituted themselves in the name of bad science!

        • Roobeedoo2 says:

          Everyone erroneously ‘associates’ smoking with death… and ‘A Counterblaste to Tobacco’ was written in 1604… is that modern enough for you?

          If you call label them ‘bullies’, you, in turn, label yourself as ‘victim’…

          Apols! butt fuck that shit, I don’t follow their religion. Why do you think prostitution is considered the world’s oldest profession?

        • Rose says:


          Why do you think prostitution is considered the world’s oldest profession?

          For your entertainment

          HARLOT plc: an amalgamation of the world’s two oldest professions – BMJ 2003

          “Tired of being good but poor, the authors have amalgamated the world’s two oldest professions in a new niche company, HARLOT plc, specialising in How to Achieve positive Results without actually Lying to Overcome the Truth

          We’ve been good. DLS has prohibited sponsors’ stockholders, much less employees, from seats on his data safety and monitoring boards and has enforced the banning of pharmaceutical reps from the medical wards at McMaster University. ADO has exposed problems with experts and has promulgated rigorous reviews of research to inform decisions about health care. In sum, we have established impeccable reputations for protecting the validity of randomised trials and systematic reviews, and for exposing lapses in methods, validity, therapeutic claims, and professional conduct.

          We’ve also been poor. DLS drives a clapped out pick-up truck, and his rowing boat leaks. ADO wears worn out blue jeans and hasn’t had a new pair of shoes for 10 years.

          It has finally dawned on us that being good and being poor are causally related: being good doesn’t pay. Accordingly, we have decided that it’s time for us to find out whether being bad pays better. We’re combining the world’s oldest and second oldest professions, cashing in on our reputations, and distributing this confidential prospectus for our new company, HARLOT plc.

          HARLOT services

          HARLOT plc will provide a comprehensive package of services to discriminating trial sponsors who don’t want to risk the acceptance and application of their products and policies amid the uncertainties of dispassionate science.

          Through a series of blind, wholly owned subsidiaries, we can guarantee positive results for the manufacturers of dodgy drugs and devices who are seeking to increase their market shares, for health professional guilds who want to increase the demand for their unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic services, and for local and national health departments who are seeking to implement irrational and self serving health policies

  7. slugbop007 says:

    Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies is a haematologist and her speciality is sickle cell disease. That makes her an expert on all matters of health, I presume.

  8. slugbop007 says:

    Prof Matt Field, Professor of Addiction, University of Liverpool. Wow, you can get a degree in just anything these days!

  9. Frank Davis says:

    Interesting coincidence. Brian May, Queen guitarist.

    May studied physics and mathematics at Imperial College London, graduating with a BSc (Hons) degree and ARCS in physics with Upper Second-Class Honours. From 1970 to 1974, he studied for a PhD degree at Imperial College, studying reflected light from interplanetary dust and the velocity of dust in the plane of the Solar System.

    In the same article:

    May’s father Harold worked as a draughtsman at the Ministry of Aviation and was a long-time heavy cigarette smoker. As a result, May dislikes smoking, even to the point where he has prohibited smoking indoors at his more recent concerts.

    • Joe L. says:

      Thanks for this, Frank. I was unaware Brain May was a vocal antismoker. Freddie Mercury was a fairly heavy smoker. I assume it wasn’t an issue for Brian in the Queen days, however, as his father didn’t die until 1988, and Freddie died only three years later. It was probably in that three-year period after losing his father and watching Freddie get ill that he channeled and projected his anger toward tobacco. Sad to see this happen to such a brilliant and seemingly open-minded person.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Not just anger, but also depression. From my link above:

        He has stated in interviews that he suffered from severe depression in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to the point of contemplating suicide, for reasons having to do with his troubled first marriage, his perceived failure as a husband and a father, his father Harold’s death and Freddie Mercury’s illness and death.

        I wonder if depression is more widely linked with antismoking? Dr W, the first antismoker I ever encountered, was one of the glummest people I’ve ever encountered. And in general the antis much seem like the life of the party.

        • Some French Bloke says:

          I wonder if depression is more widely linked with antismoking?

          … and with not smoking?
          I’m having all the trouble in the world finding reliable data on the prevalence of depression, but also dementia, Parkinson’s disease etc., in the Mormon community (though I’ve read that women affiliated to that Church have a particularly high consumption of anti-depressants). If anyone in the commentariat has saved useful links on the subject, I’d be most grateful if they could post them.

  10. Rose says:

    1 March 2011

    “Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the British Medical Association, said: “We have to start de-normalising alcohol – it is not like other types of food and drink.”

    The previous CMO even had a crack at introducing the concept of passive drinking.


    “PEOPLE should be protected from “passive drinking” in the same way they are protected from second-hand smoke, Britain’s top doctor said today.

    Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer for England, called for society to recognise the consequences of one person’s drinking on another’s well-being – a phenomenon he labelled passive drinking.”


    WHO Director-General names Sir Liam Donaldson envoy for patient safety

    “Sir Liam, who served as England’s Chief Medical Officer between 1998 and 2010, will help the Organization promote patient safety as a global public health priority.”
    http: //

    So it’s perfectly possible that now there is officially “no safe level” of alcohol, shortly drinkers will have to stand outside to protect barstaff from alcohol fumes.

    I have to admit I am giggling at the idea, but you can’t dismiss anything as impossible these days.

  11. slugbop007 says:

    A comment in the Telegraph:
    Muddycat Gareth • 4 hours ago
    I too see it as my public duty to drink as much as possible and die as soon as possible. If only eveyone could show such consideration

  12. Rose says:

    By the way, does anyone know if there is a FCAC yet?

    A Framework Convention on Alcohol Control
    29 September 2007

    “For alcohol-control measures to be taken more seriously by governments, an international treaty modelled on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is needed. One of WHO’s greatest achievements, the FCTC aims to counter the increase in tobacco consumption by making it a legal requirement for countries to introduce certain tobacco-control strategies.

    Momentum is already gathering for a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control (FCAC). In the past couple of years the World Medical Association and the American Public Health Association have been among those who have voiced their support for such a move.

    From its initial inception, the FCTC took 10 years to become a reality. The road to an FCAC is likely to be similarly long. Next year’s World Health Assembly provides a crucial opportunity for WHO and member states to make those first steps towards a global treaty to reduce alcohol-related harm.”

    If not here’s how to do it. Edited highlights. Well worth a read.

    FCTC Ratification Planning Worksheet

    1. Describe your advocacy objective as specifically as possible.

    Get your country to ratify the FCTC by December 31st 2004

    2. Who has the direct authority to make it happen [identify the target audience]

    4. What do they need to hear to persuade/cause/force them to make it happen?

    6. Who are the most effective messengers for our target audience? Who will the authorities most trust or listen to?

    Perhaps the Prime Minister, or a member of her family, has had successful surgery from a prominent heart or cancer surgeon.

    Perhaps the Health minister is particularly ambitious to be recognized and appreciated by the WHO Director General.”

  13. slugbop007 says:

    Another comment:
    sosraboc • 7 hours ago

    ********Breaking News*************

    Drinking causes climate change

  14. slugbop007 says:

    Muddycat shanganagh • 7 hours ago

    As I have said before, the only possible use for Dame Sally is as Ann Robinson’s stunt double…assuming anyone wants to save Ann Robinson from dangerous situations

  15. Roobeedoo2 says:

    OT – Interesting aerial footage of the gas leak in California and also the town hall discussion, too:

  16. Pingback: Proposed US Nationwide Smoking Ban in Public Housing | Frank Davis

  17. Pingback: All The News That Isn’t News | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s