ADD Is NOT Genetic, It's Caused By The All Knowing Eye

From the makers of useless studies comes yet another one... children that watch too much TV are more prone to get ADD and have behavioral problems later in life.

When I was a kid, if another kid was all hyper like the energizer bunny, and totally uncontrollable, we use to remark that he must have had too much red cordial. Even then, we KNEW that food dye could create a behavior change. Yet in this day and age, food is the last thing the "scientists" want to look at - maybe because it would reveal the real villain and then parents would sue the food makers. Instead, they get grants (tax payer funds) to see how TV effects kids and then draw erroneous conclusions, and request more funds to do more research to get to the bottom of it.

Let me save the taxpayer untold thousands of dollars...

MOST behavior problems (like ADD) are caused by the chemicals in the foods the children are being fed. Nutrasweet and other "additives" are having an effect on the brains of children. Change their diet to a normal one - fresh fruit and vegetables with fresh cooked meat, if you eat meat - and not a soft drink (liquid candy) and Micky D diet, and you will see the change.

And what of the TV watching creating behavioral problems later in life.

It is another example of the scientists seeing the result and assuming it is a cause of something.

Kids watching TV is a RESULT of poor parenting (here darling, just watch the TV while mommy does her hair, or whatever). The TV becomes the baby-sitter. There is NO human-to-human interaction. Thus those skills are not learnt - no interaction skills. No right/wrong supervision. Leads to a child with no attention span.

If TV plays a part, its part might just be that it holds attention for minutes before changing to something else. So the child's brain develops a habit of paying attention for mere minutes and then switching off - like watching a show then tuning out when the ads come on.

But a kid with behavioral problems is not due to TV watching. It is due to what enables that child to watch endless hours of TV (I've even seen child daycare centers put on the TV to "occupy" the children instead of them teaching the children social and other skills like they are designed and supposed to do!).

Latham, Latham, Latham, The Polly I Don't Want To See

Mark Latham is making a lot of noise. And as per usual, it is about what a poor job the conservative party is doing.

One funny thing that he recently said, was in relation to Iraq being like Vietnam. It's funny because, besides it being nothing like Vietnam at all, it is almost exactly the same as what some US Democrats said. And it makes me wonder if these socialist politicians (because a socialist is what Mark Latham is) are given instructions from a single mysterious King Socialist, or whether they hold phone conferences to decide which topic they will attack that day.

The coincidence is too great for it to be a matter of happenstance. There has to be some collusion.

I know the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has consulted with the British left in the past to exchange ideas on winning elections and how to beat right wing politicians. So brainstorming with the leftists in the US is not beyond reason.

And what's with Latham saying he will bring the Australian troops home by Christmas? He is not in power. He can't make anything happen, let alone a big something like troop movement.

And even in his "I'll bring the troops home" comments, he covers his butt by adding, "if they have finished their job," "if the handover goes smoothly," and so on.

Pardon me Marky Mark, but the current leader John Howard will also be bringing the troops home after those things are done. And if those things are done by Christmas, then the troops will be home by Christmas anyway.

Of course, if the ALP loses the next election (and I think they will), and if the troops are home by Christmas, then the ALP will "claim" it was their political pressure which got the troops back (chalking up a win for themselves, in their eyes). And if the troops aren't back then they will claim the moral high ground by saying THEY would have done it, and the right wing party is a bad party (chalking up another win, in their eyes).

Something has been said about the upcoming US elections... ask yourself, "who would Osama bin Laden prefer as the US president" and then vote for the other person.

I ask the same of our election. "Who would Osama bin Laden prefer as leader of Australia - current leader and conservative John Howard or socialist Mark Latham?"

The answer I get is, socialist Mark Latham. Therefore, the smart thing to do is to vote conservative and re-elect John Howard and the Liberal party.

At The End Of The Day

The sheeple have a new word habit.

Following on from the over-used "not a problem" we now have...

"at the end of the day."

At the end of the day, it's the word habits that people repeat without knowing it.

At the end of the day, I find the unthinking word habits annoying.

At the end of the day... you get the idea.

Hopefully, this word habit won't last too long...

Know what I mean? (know what I'm saying - for my American readers)

Researchers NOW Think Chemicals Might Cause Illness?

I can't believe it. Some Australian scientists now think that maybe - just maybe - chemicals might actually cause some genetic defects, and thus some cell mutations and therefore illness. And if it is the case, they also think, there might be many diseases that are caused by chemicals instead of being inherited. BUT, there is a LOT more research needed yet before any conclusive conclusions can be drawn and even more research needed before the findings can mean a better way to fight disease - or diagnose disease earlier (so they say).

Hello? Are there any thinking scientists out there who actually listen to what's going on in the world of science? I've been saying this for years - that chemicals cause illness, even so-called inherited illness. But I am not the only one. Other professional scientists - such as Dr Peter Duesberg - have documented how it is chemicals (drugs) which cause AIDS and not some virus.

Scientists already know certain chemicals cause cancer. And use chemicals in the lab to create cancer cells.

So what kind of game are these Aussie scientists playing at? Could the answer be in their add-on comments - a LOT more research needs to be done. Could it be that these scientists are making bogus new discoveries to get further funding, so they can continue on for a few more years without actually producing anything of use?