Without Chemicals

Spotted today at my local, terrible Pick n Pay, this stuff:

I will always be attracted by the word “microbe”. And so it was with this product, nestling amongst the cleaning products, with its owl in a nurses hat, studious-looking glasses and a bow tie, carrying a stethoscope. Why does he need the glasses? Don’t owls have amazing eyesight?
And what’s with the stethoscope? Is he a doctor, and not actually a professor? And why does the patient have cardiac or pulmonary problems if they’re using this wonderful product? None of this makes any sense.

But to be honest, it was the blurb below that really caught my eye.

Clean surfaces safely, without chemicals!

Oh really?
Well, if you’re going to do it without chemicals, then I’m guessing that there must be a motherfunning genie in your spray bottle there, because everything is made of chemicals, dahlink (possibly even genies, actually). But we’ll come to that in a second, because wait… there’s more:

Welcome to the new science of cleaning.
Harnessing the power of beneficial microbes to rid surfaces of harmful germs.

Oh really?
Microbes when they’re beneficial, germs when they’re harmful. It’s pure bacterial racism you’re looking at right there, folks.

But would you really want to spray your surfaces with microbes, beneficial or not, and no chemicals?
Well, it seems that actually, you don’t have to do either, because turn the bottle around and there’s this:

See it?

Ingredients: Aqua, Sodium Citrate, Orange Extract

Well, Aqua is just the posh word for water (which is a chemical), Sodium Citrate is the chemical name for the chemical Sodium Citrate, and your orange extract is basically a group of chemicals that comes from oranges.

That’s an awful lot of chemicals for a product which, just a bottle-turn away suggests that you can clean stuff “without chemicals”.

At least it’s halaal. And that’s likely to be because there is no pork in it and no microbes in there either. Beneficial or otherwise.

So I really am left wondering how this product is “harnessing the power of beneficial microbes to rid surfaces of harmful germs”.
Sure, the chemical in this solution might knock out some of the bugs growing on your kitchen surfaces, but it’s likely to be really ineffective when compared with “traditional” (chemical) cleaning agents, because although Sodium Citrate (which is the chemical name for the chemical Sodium Citrate, as mentioned above) might kill some “harmful germs”, a) it’s really rubbish at it, and b) it’ll kill just as many “beneficial microbes” as well.

Obviously, I didn’t buy any of this stuff, but I would fully expect the limited citrus scent to be overwhelmed with the stench of bullshit.

I’m done here for the moment, but visit the Professor Microbe website and you’ll learn that:

Professor Microbe™ uses Nano-Natural technology with Active Nanoids to cut through fat, oil and grease.

u wot m9?

Yeah, remember that BSc you were going to do in Nano-Natural Science? The one that had the foundation course in Active Nanoids?
You know: the one with all the made up words that sound ever so sciencey, but don’t actually exist?

And don’t even get me started on their “The Technology” page. It’s so deeply unscientific on every line that I’d even bet that Tim Noakes is jealous.

I shall return to Professor Microbe™ in a future post, and share more details on their utter nonsense from a considered, scientific point of view.

Silly Diet Saturday

Someone once said:

The good thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not.

And that person was right. Of course, there are other good things about science as well. I’m one of them, for example.
Sadly, not everyone respects science (or me, actually) in the way that we deserve.

I recognise that posting this on a Saturday won’t keep the cult away.
Comment moderation is, as always, enabled.
Don’t @ me, although previous experience has suggested that you surely will.

The thing is that this cherry-picking of convenient bits of scientific data is merely the gateway drug to ignoring facts altogether. I expect to see many vocal LCHFers to head down the anti-vax spiral with Uncle Tim anytime soon.

Caracal Capture

Remember the Caracal (Caracal caracal) that was eating penguins?

Good news from the Urban Caracal Project this morning – they think that they have caught it:

 

This is Disa – a “healthy adult female” – who will now be radio-collared and relocated some distance away from Boulders Beach.

Yes, it’s a bit dark, but isn’t she beautiful? Look at that shiny coat – that’s the Omega 3 oils from all those penguins she’s been eating. There’s a lesson here for all of us, and it’s only a matter of time until someone (Tim Noakes) launches the LCHP (Low Carbohydrate, High Penguin) Diet cookbook.

After all, extensive studies in caracal populations (n=1) have shown the obvious benefits of this eating plan.

Yes

Here’s a question from the cookbook king:

Fullscreen capture 2016-06-13 042325 PM.bmp

Yes. Yes, they did.
And, what’s more:

South Africa were a major disappointment under new coach Allister Coetzee and new captain Adriaan Strauss, looking lethargic for much of the game, but Ireland cared little as captain Rory Best hailed his side’s “massive physical performance”.

Awkward.
Have you maybe tried some bread?

How LCHF works

It doesn’t. Or rather… well… it might, but there’s actually no scientific evidence that it does half the stuff that those seemingly blinkered individuals who are happily gripped in its greasy claws claim it does.

There’s evidence that it probably doesn’t do at least some what it claims to do though, but Ross Tucker, Professor of Exercise Physiology at the University of the Free State, hits the nail on the head with these two tweets detailing how that news will be handled by those in the Cult of Noakes™:

Fullscreen capture 2016-02-25 105525 AM.bmp

Here’s that study: link / PDF by the way.

Fullscreen capture 2016-02-25 105529 AM.bmp

Just a reminder. It’s simply not scientific to only quote the studies whose outcomes support your agenda or narrative.