One thing I have been practicing with myself for a few weeks is the practice of  not being a naysayer. A naysayer is not someone who says “no”, it is someone who says “no” without good thought.
Dialogs normally go like this:
Offspring: “Dad can I please borrow your…”
Me:(Interrupting): “No.”
That, right there, is me being a naysayer.
I am trying to change that by not saying “nay,” in accordance with the ancient practice of “Saynonay”. To practice Saynonay just keep in your mind not to say “nay” in any way unless it seems, after good thought, to be the right thing to say.
If you ask someone if they are playing Saynonay, and they say “no”, they are probably not practicing Saynonay.
In the weeks I have been doing it I do think it has a positive benefit on my life, and I would expect my kids – all four of whom now have metabolic syndrome and are in prison for gang related offences. I jest.
Interestingly, nobody knows the etymology of “Saynonay”. Some think it traces back to the Great First Language, others think it comes from the PreprotoPalli form “sa su ka” which means “talk outwardly sweetly”. I don’t think it matters, what is important about practicing Saynonay is simply not to say “nay” unless it really is OK to say nay.

NoAM Eating

Not eating in the morning.
I am a pretty big believer that there are fundamental differences between proper fasting and intermittent fasting, even when the proper fasting is but a mere day. It seems plausible, and I think the evidence suggests, that the magic happens with no consumption.
I often go two proper days, I have been three. Some people go for many days but just a few times or once a year. I don’t know what is wellbeing optimal, but my opinion is currently with the smaller, regular, fasts.
Anyhoo’s… this does not mean that I am at all against intermittent fasting.
Quite the contrary. One simple, and I think ancient, fasting routine is just to not eat in the morning. Break fast. Before the PM. I do it two or three times a week. It is very easy, and most of us will have done it without wanting or trying.
In these 16 hours, your body will change state.
Perhaps not into the full-on FAST state with autophagy and stem-cells,  that is the aim of informed fasting, but still, goodness will be happening, even if it is just giving your metabolic organs a bit of a rest from their normal 247mustprocessthis mode.
Some people will find that NoAM fasting is good for calorie reduction, if just because you are going to be missing a meal and eating less. This makes sense.
But this doesn’t work for me because, as happened today, after a NoAM Fasting, my car swerved into Tescos and I rinsed of five packets of Square crisps as I drove home.
The wrappers are in the glove compartment.

A friend just asked me: “What evidence is there that EMF damages our cells on a permanent level?”

You should do your own research on that if you are skeptical, and why not be sceptical?:)

But my understanding, which is not totally naieve, is that there are many mechanisms of disruption.

I am not going to use any research to answer your question here, and I am not one for details, but here goes, my attempt to pursued you, via answering it.

The first thing that you need to understand is that of all the millions or billions of variables that constitute our bodies: Oxygen, Water, salts, amino-acids… there is only one that is totally biologically ubiquitous. This is electricity: Within, and between, every living are electrochemical processes that operate on tiny, tiny voltages.

The second thing that you need to understand is that wirelessly connected devices gain their connection via electromagnetic energy.

The third thing you need to understand is that connected devices operate at energy levels thousands and thousands of times higher than, both the natural background EMF energy (As the earth was 200 years ago, or so) and the biological levels found in every living cell in our bodies.

You need to understand and accept these three things before proceeding really Alexs. They are just science fact, which you should be able to easily disprove or accept.

Once you agree with the three understandings above then you can start to extrapolate from those premises.

Does it seem plausible that connected devices could cause biological change?

I think it does, why would it not. There is nothing special about the electrical energies involved here, over and above say, an electrical motor.

Would such changes be unnatural?

I think clearly yes. Three hundred years ago no human had expected anything like the levels of even measly Bluetooth4. (This is one point I am not convinced about without further researching. #cosmicblasts etc).

Would such changes be disruptive?

I would imagine that if you were to be able to take a person with a magic wand just randomly change the nano-voltages in the electrical systems in their bodies then those changes would have a point at which they would become noticeably negative. This seems totally reasonable to me as an assumption. And it is a case analogous to EMF, except with EMF it is more point of  source dependent.

So where we are now, I think, without any science evidence, just thinking,  is an understanding that, because of the nature of connected devices and biological systems, it is plausible that there could be negative effects from connected devices.

I accept that, it seems very sensible to me as a conclusion. There is no WooWoo in what I have said and I challenge anyone to refute any of the above:)

The next stage in my answering your question is to look at evidence. Is there evidence that supports the above plausible hypothesis?

I think there is lots.

The newest (2016?), most-compelling, evidence is to do with their system which decides on whether or not to allow calcium into our cells. Every cell needs calcium. Any cell can be damaged by too much calcium. This system that governs the calcium flow is called a “Voltage Gated Calcium Channel” and it is shown to be heavily susceptible to disruption from non-natural EMF. The effects of this are emerging to be many, but one that seems accepted is that this calcium imbalance, caused by your phone etc, causes sever oxidative stress. This is the cell ageing…rusting… corroding that is the cause of most modern diseases (It’s the thing that antioxidants are touted to reduce.)

So there we go…

I hope that answers your question!

Vegan Oysters. Again.

I am a committed Vegan, but I am totally missing oysters.

Every day this mini-battle goes on in my head.

I am a Vegan for two prime reasons.

Reason One

I think, for reasons of woo woo, that the following is a supreme teaching:

“Do Not Eat Animals”.

Reason Two

Like most people, I do not want to be an increaser of negativity in the world. That is, I don’t want to choose to cultivate and propagate or in any sense be responsible for or supportive or endorsing negativity production in any way.

The “choice” aspect is important here, I think:

When I eat a salad, beings may have died to get that salad before me. A shrew in a field. Two badgers in a pile up on the M4. All is possible, even with kale.

But when I eat meat, I am necessarily choosing that an animal was imprisoned, tortured, exploited and slaughtered for me.

Vegans choose not to cause suffering in their choices, this does not mean that their choices will never cause suffering. #quornpocalypse

Once I accept this principle (Ahimsa and Sukka) it is just a no-brainer to me that if I eat cheese or chicken, then I am causing suffering. Often in massive ways that, as the end consumer, I see myself as ultimately responsible for. I pay the assassin via the teller or waiter or jolly vendor at the farmer’s market.

I have philosophised these kinds of points so much over the last few years, more than most, I would wager. Still my conclusions remain: it is water-tight, a no-brainer, a comestible cogito: We should not eat animals.

Of course I would eat meat in a survival situation.

Of course honey is not the same as ham.

Of course milk is worse than flesh, because it is flesh, plus more suffering. If B contains X and C contains B then C contains X.

I belive that if you want to be one of those people, like most people, one of the… “I-dont-wanna-be-cruels”, then, in no sense, can your meat eating be justified. You are being irrational, alongside your cruelty. (Please, please prove me wrong on this, for I would so love it not to be so true.)

The Mammalian end of the spectrum, and even the birds and the fish, those little fellas, I am close to done with them in my philosophical enumerations and ruminations, but Oysters, they are still in the mirky penumbra, somewhere between figs and accidental cod roe.

Of oysters I cannot say, “I should not eat that.”

I don’t currently eat them, and haven’t for many many months, but by gosh, they are almost on the tip of my tongue.

I cannot yet justify their exclusion for reasons a bit like, but not limited to, the following:

I cannot really make sense of an oyster experincing suffering, in much the same way that I cannot imagine yeast suffering. I could torture a goose, but an oyster? That does not yet make sense to me.

I don’t think it experiences anything. It has no brain, as such. It has a strewn out clumps of proto-neurons. It will respond to stimulus, but feel pain or in any sense be, in any point in anything that can be considered a mental space?

Is it a being?

When I think “Do Not Eat Animals” that last term expands out into something like “sentient beings”. “Sentience” means able to experience. “Being” means able to be. I don’t know really what either of those terms really mean. Nobody really does. Especially not the oysters. But I am sure a dog is sentient, as I know I am. Oysters, profoundly lack this sureness, to me, right now.

We think fish can feel pain, they respond as such, they can be anaesthetised, they have similar pain biologies to mammals. But these arguments and understands do not apply to oysters. Oysters may move away from toxic environments but that does not mean they experience the environment. Singled celled organisms can do the same, and vegans eat those. #youpeople!

There is another point, I will make this my last, which is that oysters are jam-packed with nutrients that vegans find very hard to get without chemical supplementation (Which is what I do).

Is that wise? The vegan definition on the society website centres around the term “practicable”. I like that definition, it gives room for reasonableness. I am forced, by reason, to ask, is it not practicable to eat oysters given that, being human, I need B12?

Is it really better that I get it from some industrial process in pill form?

I do not know the answers to these questions and so I just trundle along, not eating oysters, yada yada, “have another bit of cress, Mat”.

Thanks for reading!

Hard Cheese

First  one realises, just by thought, that they are a cause, enabler, endorser, supporter, antecedent (temporal or not) and well… a fan of the causing of  unacceptable suffering.

Then one realises that, ultimately, the reason that they cause this suffering is to satisfy their  own momentary mouth pleasure.

When these two simple realisations are acknowledged I belive it would be ignoble of me not to then ask myself,  “What should I do?”

If I consume meat, then am I an accomplice in the murder of a baby animal, just for fun?

What should I do?

It took me a while to get to answer this question. There were lapses and cognitive dissonances and a guilty goat curry that was “going to waste”.

But the answer came, a nobrainer it seems to me now, “I do not eat animals.”

And that is almost that, except that  it get’s worse than the worseness of meat and the obvious butchery/epiphany of that equation:

If I eat dairy, then I cause greater and wider suffering than the suffering I cause from just eating meat.

This is startling, when you let it settle.

The dairy industry is the meat industry.

But it is the meat industry with extra layers of humiliation and exploitation.

It has enforced breeding, unnatural confinement, torture, antibiotic recklessness and on and on…

Is it not is even more repugnant and brutal than the meat farming?

Cheese is literally addictive.

I miss it so much.

Caveat Emptor and Current Data

  1. The word data comes from the latin word “datum”.
    1. A datum is something, like a stick, or a number, which can be given from one to another.
  2. Data is the plural of datum.
  3. As An Example:
    1. Take the data 4029:
      1. I just gave you this data.
        1. You can copy that.
        2. Share it.
        3. You can alter it.
        4. Delete it.
        5. Split it.
        6. Hide it.
        7. You do this to the data: 9204
  4. Data has no context.
    1. It has no meaning.
    2. It is only when it has context that data then becomes something with meaning.
  5. In  3.1, 4029 might be:
    1. My childhood phone number.
    2. An encoding for a three letter word.
    3. Part of a coordinate to a sub-marine base in a spy-movie.
    4. The last four contiguous numbers of my driving licence.
    5. It could have no meaning to me and meaning to you.
      1. What that meaning is, is the information.
    6. It could be two of your winning lottery numbers.
    7. It could have meaning in that you and I might share an exceptional coincidental void of connections to this number.
  6. Data has less value than information.
  7. All information is data.
    1. All data is not information.
  8. Data exists when there is a change of state of a representing/recording medium.
  9. Questions:
    1. Is 4029 the same data as 111110111101?
      1. It is the same number.
        1. As is FBD.
    2. Could a change in the locks and junctions in  a canal system represent numbers?
      1. Is this identical to silicone logic gates?
    3. Imagine the following thought experiment :
      1. Consider:
        1. At time T1 You have a packet of data that can be divided up as: ABCD.
          1. It could be four bytes, or four yadabytes, it doesn’t matter.
        2. At T2 you split the packet into AB and CD.
        3. And then at T3 you join the packet back together again to make ABCD.
      2. The composite question is: Where, How and Why does the information ABCD exist between T1 and T2 and T3?
    4. Is truly random noise information?

Wound-Healer Omnibalm

The Wound-healer Triple-C Omnibalm Oil that I make is, I attest, exceptional in quality and origination. If there were olympics for healing oils and balms…

Here is how I make it:

Firstly make the Triple-C Omni Balm:

Soak a mixture of Camomile, Comfrey and Calendula in variant tree oils, in the dark, for as long as you can. Stirring very occasionally. Then extract this mash in three quite different ways: cold pressed, steamed and boiled.  

The resultant green oil is Triple-C oil.

I use this with beeswax in my 3-C-Omnibalm Oil.  I still make it to the same formula six years later.

I also use it as the basis for the Wound Healer Omnibalm which we now use on all manner of cuts, grazes, burns and punctures. Even committed woo skeptics have attested to its remarkableness. (Please note, I am not trying to sell you this stuff. #DIY)

In order to make the Woundhealer I take the above made 3C Oil and, into this,  I grind up, as fine as possible, various amounts of:  bacopa, cinnamon, gotukola, turmeric, chillie, saffron and other top-shelf spices. It  makes this bright red oil that, in my opinion, is better than placebo at healing and helping wounds. #woo


What stuff!



EMF is the radio waves that zoom from your phone to the phone mast. The waves of energy that fill your house from your router or your TV Box. The weak waves of Bluetooth and the strong waves of 4g. They are  the microwaves that defrost your fajita.

They exist naturally, in oceans and the Earth’s electro magnetic fields. We know they bust forth from the stars and rain at us from every direction.

But recently and for obvious reasons,  they have become much, much more abundant in our lives. And much more acute in their energy.

Should I be worried?

Many people and organisations say they are totally safe. -“The energy just isn’t high enough”.

Many clever people think that RF radiation is one of the biggest health threats we face as a civilization.

What should I think?

What should I do?

What is my rational response to this?

Let’s Enumerate!

The Science

  1. We live in a world with a more complex Electro Magnetic Frequency pattern than 200 years ago.
    • You can see this by taking an EMF detector into a cave.
      • That is how it would have been, 200 years ago.
  2. We live in a world with a higher amount of EMF energy compared to 200 years ago.
    1. All of our phones and TV stations and Routers are all releasing more EMF energy into the world.
  3. We live in a world with a higher amount of EMF energy  and complexity than thirty years ago.
  4. We know that EMF Energy can cook meat.
    1. We know it is used in Microwaves.
      1. We know how this works:
        1. Water Molecules in the meat are vibrated super fast and the resulting friction creates the heat that cooks the meat.
      2. We know that the energy in a Microwave oven, in that small space, is much higher than the energy coming out of my laptop wifi.
  5. We know that the energy pulsed into a body, by a Wireless device, is inversely proportional to the distance from the source multiplied by itself.
    1. This is a fundamental principle of physics.
    2. It means that holding it to your skin is very energetically different than if you had your phone in your bag.
  6. It is not yet possible to be certain about the possible health risks.
    1. This is not true about, say Cigarettes.
      1. It might come that one day we will see EMF like Cigarettes.
      2. It will never come again that we will see Cigarettes as harmless.


My Opinion

  1. I think that there is a significant amount of science, from all over the world, suggesting a multitude of harms caused by extra  EMF in our lives.
  2. However: The demonstrable and accepted fact that EMF radiation can effect cells is the only that scientific conclusion that I need.
    1. Knowing this makes everything else redundant, it is a grounding of potential negative effect.
  3. I do not want my cells affected by EMF. (Unless its super-powers.)
    1. I don’t care if EMF only changes:
      1. How my cells tick their circadian tocks.
      2. How my cells metabolise energy.
      3. The risk factor for extra tiredness.
    2. Given The Choice:  I do not want my cells affected by EMF radiation.
      1. Do you want your cells to be changed by your cellphone?
  4. I do not want my cells exposed to EMF.
    1. Once I see the risk vectors then a cheap, safe and seemingly effective strategy is to reduce exposure to EMF.
  5. If one wishes to minimise their cellular exposure to EMF then there are a number of tactics:
    1. Scientifically Unquestionable tactics:
      1. Sleeping in a lead lined chamber within a  faraday cage.
      2. Using a some kind of Distance From Source multiplier; such as a cushion or rolled up denim jacket.
      3. Turning the wifi router off at night.
    2. Questionable Tactics:
      1. Surrounding your router with Amethyst crystals.
      2. Painting your house in special paint.
      3. Sleeping on a bed made of shungite.
      4. Wearing WooShoesTM
  6. Airplane mode reduces the amount of EMF radiation going into your body.
    1. It will also bestow these benefits upon you and your phone:
      1. It will save your battery.
      2. It reduces the chance of disturbance.
        1. Sometimes this is good!
    2. Airplane mode has a very low time cost.
  7. I think the jury is very out on the EMF==Cancer connection.
    1. Some clever people, including experts,  are utterly convinced about it.
  8. I belive that EMF exposure causes sleeplessness.
  9. I belive that EMF exposure causes heating but this is not significant, in most cases.
  10. I belive there is good evidence that EMF exposure effects reproduction on a cellular level.
  11. I belive that distance is your friend when it comes to EMF exposure from any source.
    1. In your Iphone settings it alludes to this inverse square in the RF Exposure section.



The Lymphatic System

One thing that I have taught myself about recently is a basic understanding of the lymphatic system.

(Thanks to the internet and The Pareto Principle it is not difficult or  high time/money cost to get a basic understanding of most things. Phew! #CHE)

So here is my basic understanding of the Lymphatic System:

The Science

  1. Its role across a vast number of wellbeing vectors is incontrovertible.
  2. It is the main engine of our immune system for both toxins and pathogens.
  3. It is the sorting sub-system of our digestive system.
  4. It is analogous to the drainage of the immune system.
    1. The Law of Analogy : Sometimes a thing may best be understood in terms of its similarity to other things you already understand.
  5. It is analogous to the barracks of the immune system.
  6. Our brain has a lymphatic sub-system.
    1. This directly removes the physical waste and toxins from the brain.
  7. We have three times more lymph in us than blood.
  8. The lymphatic system has no pump.
    1. This is unlike the veinal  and arterial systems.
  9. There are only two ways to move lymph about:
    1. By moving the body.
    2. By constricting the blood vessels.
      1. This is done when we are cold.
  10. The Lymphatic system connects to the digestive system.
    1. It is like the filter layer of our digestive system.

So assuming the truth of the statements above, I think it is reasonable to conclude that:

My Opinions

If you wish to optimise your wellbeing then learning and optimising your own Lymphatic system should be a high priority. I currently think that the following is good advice, though of course, it is is ripe for questioning and doubting:

  1. Consume Pro-lymphatic foods.
  2. Be as active as possible.
    1. This is in order to keep the Lymph draining and flowing.
      1. This is in order to keep the immune system active, replenished, efficient and robust.
  3. If you feel poorly then try to be as active as possible.
  4. Drink lots of water.
    1. The return of the eternal no-brainer.


If you find fault above please let me know.



The Parts of a Program

A Computer Program has four kinds of logical parts.

The “Ions.”

  • Function:
    • An operation
    • A procedure
    • An discrite algorithm
    • Where a change is made that is not just a logical change
  • Information:
    • States are recorded
    • Variables
    • Files
    • Packets
    • The smallest measure in all possible worlds is the bit.
      • The difference between this and that.
      • Yes and No.
  • Repetition:
    • When something is repeated.
    • When something is repeated.
    • In essence it is a type of conditional.
      • If a condition is true do these conditions until the condition is false.
  • Condition:
    • This is where the program makes a choice.
    • If this then that.
    • If not this then not that.
    • Conditionals drive the magic of computing.
    • They are logical combustions.

Any program can be broken down into these parts. I cannot conceive of  a program that cannot be broken down to these parts. My analog wrist watch is a computer program with these logical parts.

  1. Function: The date dial turns.
  2. Information: The numbers involved.
  3. Repetition: The tick and the tock.
  4. Condition: If the hour hand hits twelve advance the day dial.
    1. Etc…

If you are trying to understand a computer game then consider that the first method is to break it down into the hierarchy of its parts.