you freakin' kids really need to familiarize yourselves with the classics. fuck.

this was initially released in mono, so it's actually kind of jarring to hear it in stereo. but it's what we've got.

listen, you're going to tell me i'm wasting my life having fun.

i'm going to tell you you're wasting your life at work.

so, just understand the feeling's mutual.

"everybody seems to think i'm lazy. i don't mind, i think they're crazy!" - john lennon

so, to be clear, i will determine both nitrogen and sulfur intake from protein intake, in the end, once i get the data in, totally.

the two saas are methionine and cysteine, but i'm going to mentally compartmentalize methionine for the methyl group and cysteine for the sulfur and derivatives. total nitrogen balance will be calculated from total protein intake.

so, the 19 mg/kg came from this text:

https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12#677

and is an average of three studies, boosted by a factor of 1.24. this is the calculation:

1.24*(20+13+12.6)/3 = 18.848

the studies are from 1958, 1991 and 2001.

so, 1.24*(13+12.6)/2 = 15.872 is probably a better estimate.

these are indeed lumped together as "saa" (sulfur amino acids). the first study is based on a total nitrogen balance, the second on "methionine balance", with five participants, and the third....let's look at the third:

Objective: The goal of the present study was to determine the methionine requirement of men fed a diet devoid of cysteine (total SAA requirement).

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/74/6/756/4737429

Therefore, the total SAA requirements found in the present study represent the amount of dietary methionine needed to fulfill all the functions of methionine in vivo. 

that's not the way this is usually presented. but, the results are actually quite useful to me as an rdi for methionine specifically, allowing me to focus on cysteine afterwards

these are the numbers from the study:

daily: 12.6*70 = 882

upper: 21*50 = 1050

using the 1.24 factor as previously to get from the ear to the rdi, 

1.24*882 = 1093.68, which is about 100 mg more than the number i was using, which was constructed by turning the eu data into a ratio and applying it to the usda data

1.24*1050 = 1302, which is considerably less than the number cited in a different study (46 mg/kg)

it makes sense for me to use these numbers instead, as the rdi is higher and the upper limit is lower. 

that means i'm separating cysteine from methionine in the rdis, even as i connect them in the chart. and, the next update will consequently likely also include actual cysteine precursors as well.

the above article also summarizes what i've put together fairly well:

Methionine is a nutritionally indispensable amino acid required for the normal growth and development of all mammals (1, 2), whereas cysteine is conditionally indispensable (3, 4). In addition to its required role in protein synthesis, methionine supplies the methyl group for numerous methylation reactions and the sulfur atom for cysteine formation (5–8). Through the intermediate S-adenosylmethionine, methionine is the source of the methyl groups of choline, creatine, and both DNA and RNA intermediates (1, 5, 6, 8). Cysteine is involved in the protein synthesis and biosynthesis of taurine, sulfate, and glutathione (6).

so, if i'm getting enough cysteine, what i really need methinione for is the methyl side chain - not the sulfur.

remember this: talk of the 25th never really applied well to trump.

it could very well be a more real scenario under biden, and pelosi has, as usual, handed that to them on a platter.

harris is unusually well connected, as well - and she pulls the trigger, in the end.

after sweating a gallon out this morning, i'm feeling much, much better this evening. i seem to have avoided the migraine. so, i'm going to get some coffee and get to finishing that post on methionine up.

i should also get my foia through this week, which will let me file a case against the grocery store, as well as go to the justice to have criminal charges filed against the karen for filing a false report.

obviously, it is preferable when defendants respond, but cases like this need end points, too, and the karen is almost a year past any reasonable deadline.

that should work in my favour, if i don't get an almost immediate response. 

the karen case hits a sad milestone on monday.

the karen asked for an extension until monday, which was neither granted nor denied. instead, the court asked for this guy ryan to file a response, which led to the karen exposing her lying self for all to see. i asked for some direction from the court last week and didn't get a response...

as the karen is clearly not responding, the court should have ruled on this a very long time ago.

so, i'm going to need to get on the phone on tuesday (presuming no response appears by the end of the day monday) and get the court staff to commit to setting strict deadlines. 

listen, there's old, and there's old, and biden is old.

i'm only pointing this out because it's a visceral, real observation. it's the first and last thing you notice when he walks up to the podium. and, he's no doubt aware of it.

i don't think he's going to make it through four years, and he may be gone sooner than anybody wants to really contemplate. i'm not going to participate in the inauguration hoopla or analysis, except to point out that i think much of the pundit class is asking the wrong questions, and what we're dealing with here is the lamest lame duck ever.

we are the source of all law - nothing else is.

the most powerful source of law in the universe is the collective will of the demos, as expressed via uncoerced direct plebiscite; nothing supersedes this, and everything else must conform to it.

the broader point is that you need to be skeptical of experts at every turn - look at their arguments and analyze them critically, don't accept their authority because they have credentials or titles.

it took me a bit of effort, but i think i made my point very clearly and very convincingly, and if you're too stupid to figure it out, i'm not really concerned about it.

actually, i think that it's fairly clear that this delay in my ability to provide a source to demonstrate the historical fact that the populist (and, later, progressive) movement in the united states was a white supremacist movement (which is easily researched in real libraries, if you actually look it up) exposed the true depth of ignorance that exists on the fake left. this really isn't a point that should require me to post a doctoral thesis to back myself up on; this should be common knowledge in a country, and especially in a left-identifying movement in that country, that has a solid grasp of it's own history. so, what do you say when you find yourself in a situation where you're making an argument that you know damned well is grounded in truth, but that you're having difficulty locating a useful source to demonstrate, because there's such a thorough level of disinformation in the press about it, and the people that you expect to know better are just attacking your credibility, as a consequence of that disinformation?

this is what happened:

- i made a valid claim i knew was true (because i had read it in a hundred different places - chomsky, zinn, wiki articles, random internet articles, etc) but that i couldn't provide a clear, authoritative source for, at first - because i'm not an expert in the topic, and never claimed i was. i have degrees in math, computer science and law. in all my years at school, i took one course on byzantine history for breadth. my understanding of history is deep, but i'm a self-taught nerd, and i don't think that gives me less credibility - that's the fallacy of authority, and needs to be rejected by any sort of real or meaningful leftist, on it's face. you can only get so many degrees, in the end - there's only so much time, and only so much debt to incur.

- a lot of very stupid people decided that if i couldn't find a source immediately then i must obviously be making shit up, and therefore must be wrong. that's another fallacy, that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

- these idiots turned up their megaphone and yelled their ignorance far and wide.

- i then found a good source (after some searching.) and posted it - and even had to do it twice because google censored it the first time, perhaps even as a consequence of the previous fallacies.

- but, no retraction was ever posted, anywhere. 

it's like i'm arguing with the editors of the new york times.

and, this is what calls itself the contemporary left - the blind leading the blind.

they both need to be abolished, but the church is below the state in terms of relevance and importance.

as a secularist, i will argue that ecclesiastical/church/sharia/natural law is the lowest form of law, and should be unenforceable by the state, unless it's adopted into positive law, first. that doesn't mean it can't be incorporated into real law, but, on it's own, it's a kind of fake law that exists in parallel to the real legal system and, until it's incorporated into real law, it has no legal force.

as a consequence, i have no respect for your religious rules and will not take them seriously in any sort of legal discussion at all.

if you want to get high on serotonin, you shouldn't have to go see a doctor, first.

but, you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking that you're doing anything other than getting high on serotonin, either.

the flip side of that is that a lot of the drugs that psychiatrists hand out should be available over the counter as recreational trips, and a lot of the "patients" should be able to just go to the store and buy them as recreational drugs, if they really want.

so, i reject the psychobabble presented by philosophers masquerading as scientists (freud, jung, derrida....and foucault, too) and i reject the bulk of modern practical psychology. what's the right way to do psychology?

i stated previously that what i have time for is the application of empirical science in the field of biology to questions of the mind. the mind and the body are the same thing, everybody agrees with that nowadays. so, you alter your brain by feeding it drugs (or by training it with stimuli). that's all very clear, and that basis is what psychology needs to build itself on.

the problem, however, is that modern psychiatry actually doesn't do that. so, the freudians and lacanians alike come up with these strawman arguments that they use to try to tear down "biopsychology" as pseudoscience, while upholding their own nonsense. the frustrating part is that if what the psychoanalysts said about "biopsychology"was actually true, it would actually be an empirical science, and i'd be in favour of it. but, it's not...

the right way to do psychology, then, is what the psychoanalysts accuse the "biopsychologists" of doing, and what they actually aren't doing - they need to actually test for hormonal conditions before they prescribe. and, if they can't test, they shouldn't prescribe.

by refusing to appoint a new governor-general, the government could grasp on to a great opportunity to push forward a long overdue reform.

fwiw, i don't see any good reason for julie payette to have resigned. i'm not denying the facts in the report, but i don't think they're a good reason for a resignation. i mean, i don't think they're a good reason to get upset, regardless; but, if you find it upsetting, that's just how capitalism operates, and you don't undo that by removing figureheads. it's a very silly response by a government that only cares about appearances. it's truly a generation jones mentality in place, and i'll be happy to get rid of it.

but, i think they should abolish the governor-general, anyways. so i don't actually care.

and, that's my response as to who the next gg should be - nobody. get rid of it...

btw, if you want to read sites that have paywalls, blocking javascript is generally effective.

and, they allow that backdoor because they know they'd become irrelevant if they didn't.

we need to change to fit the technology, not try to force the technology to change to fit us; the latter approach always fails in the end.

if the government finds itself unable to win arguments in a free and open blogosphere, it needs to adjust it's messaging, not try to shut down the discourse.

this idea that google should pay news companies for "hosting" their material (which they don't actually do. that's an absurd misunderstanding of how they operate.) is really the last dying gasp of the newspaper industry, which needs to be put out of it's misery and ended once and for all.

blogging by independent voices, free of censorship and editorializing, is the future. what they're trying to maintain - centralized news media - is obsolete, and should die.

as a consumer, i'll tell you it won't work. the bottom line is that what these people do isn't worth paying them for, and they need to come to terms with the fact that their product is so substandard that it's not actually worth anything.

what australia is doing is technologically reactionary, and while i would oppose it, i have little faith in my own government to do much better, as it is a reactionary government, as well. google is right to threaten to pull out, and i hope they do, and i hope it spurs a backlash that throws the government out of office.

the demise of the msm will create a more vibrant blogosphere, and that's what i want to see, moving forwards - not these backwards, reactionary attempts to prevent obsolete media establishments from dying long overdue deaths.

what i support is taking the msm off life support, and good riddance to it.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2021/01/22/google-may-remove-its-search-engine-from-australia-could-the-same-happen-in-canada.html

i don't really sweat when i'm biking. i'm in very good health; i put a lot of effort into it, i should be.

but, i repeatedly wake up drenched in sweat when i get home.

if i'm being drugged like i think i am, it's having a very negative effect on my overall physical health, which is of far greater concern to me than society's opinion about my mental health, which i mostly think is a triviality. not only is this not helping, but it's having a truly devastatingly negative effect on me.

if it was harmless and i could just shrug it off, whatever. but, it's not. it needs to stop.

so, i caught up on some sleep and feel a tad better.

that's the other thing that continually happens - i go out for groceries and can't sleep when i get back, even though i should generally be exhausted from the exercise involved in the grocery run (which frequently requires 7-8 hours of walking and biking, and this is by design - i need and like the exercise, it's good for my cardiovascular health, which is my primary cause of concern). eventually, that's how i clear whatever is entering my system (and i think it's some kind of foreign chemical, some kind of drug) when i get back - i have to sleep it off. and, i have to sweat it out, when i'm sleeping.

if we put the idea that i'm getting drugged aside, that's what i'm actually experiencing - heightened feelings of agitation and frustration when i get back, until i sweat out whatever's causing it over two or three days worth of heavy sleeping.

and, i wish it would stop.

i neither like drugs, nor do i like authoritarianism.

that's perhaps somewhat unusual, outside of the punk scene, where it's sort of the norm.

i don't think people should go to jail for using drugs, although i'm actually in support of fining smokers - both marijuana and tobacco - in residential areas. there has to be some way for low income non-smokers to get out of the way, and much of the discourse ignores how hard it really is to avoid it, unless you can afford your own property. the law should be written primarily to protect the rights of low-income non-smokers, not to protect the rights of smokers.

i do think that addictive drugs with high overdose rates (i pointed to meth and heroin) should be very, very hard to find.

and, i think that libertarians get it wrong when it comes to social reactions to drugs. they seem to think that, if it weren't for the government, drug prohibition would cease; they seem to fail to grasp the depth of social opposition that exists to hard drug use in low-income neighbourhoods. the truth is that what the police often do is protect the pushers from the wrath of the community. if you took the cops out of the scenario and let the community govern itself, it would be far more vicious than the cops are in cracking down on dealers. they'd get lynched; that's the facts of it.

i'm not really in favour of lynching pushers, but i'm an anarchist, and i do think it's up to the community to police itself, in this manner. my argument is actually that abolishing the police would reduce access to hard drugs, because they wouldn't be there to protect the dealers from retribution anymore.

but, in the status quo, i think that a kind of decriminalization + supply reduction combination is the way forwards.

i also think that less resources should be expended on helping addicts out, because once you're on these drugs, you can't really get off them. rehab doesn't work. relapses are the norm, the expectation. there has to be a way out - but we have to stop proselytizing. this christian idea that these people need help and support is wrong; they have to help themselves, and they should more or less be left to die unless they take the initiative to do so.

so, i don't know what you label that. i'm definitely not a market libertarian, but i'm some kind of anarchist; i think we need less policing, but i don't think that means more permissiveness. it's clearly a public health issue, but i reject the idea that we need more social workers as misguided christian do-gooding. it's some kind of synthesis, i guess. 

my politics around drugs come from the 80s hardcore scene, which ranged from completely straight-edge to libertarian, but abstinent. i'm generally not a fan of types of music that glorify drug use, or have any interest in living a rock star lifestyle.

now that that is clearer to me, where does that 1330 mg (or 19 mg/kg) number come from?

i should be able to figure that out.

i'm still not convinced that the 1330 mg rdi of methionine + cysteine really makes sense given what they're used for, but i'll hold to it regardless, and then add on extra requirements for taurine and cysteine.

i decided on 60 mg/meal for taurine, meaning i have 425 (total) - 204 (cysteine requirements) - 60 (taurine requirements) = 161 mg left for glutathione.

i know this is facile, but these are rough estimates. is that enough?

i may pass out soon due to the headache.

for right now, i need to sort through this mess of information on methionine, cysteine, taurine, glutathione, serine & glycine, at least to start, to try to make sense of what i am and am not getting.

the fruit bowl has 559 mg of methionine and 425 mg of cysteine, which i think should be enough for methionine, cysteine & taurine.

actually, wait. i'm confusing myself, here; if glutathione is a derivative of cysteine, and i'm getting a lot of cysteine, i don't need to worry about synthesizing it from serine - i'm just getting enough cysteine, straight up. yeah. ok. i think i just undid what i was confused about.

see, i had glutathione listed as a derivative of methionine and wanted to make sure i was getting enough methionine to synthesize enough glutathione. but, then i realized i had to convert it to cysteine first, and realized the choke point was serine, not methionine. but, what i should really do is list glutathione as a derivative of cysteine, and then measure the amount of glutathione i need relative to the amount of cysteine i'm getting, making the question of whether i'm getting enough serine to synthesize enough cysteine irrelevant, because i'm just getting enough cysteine flat out.

ok.

that said, when i do serine more formally, the question of conversion to cysteine will come up, and i may base an rdi on how much excess cysteine i may need to produce enough glutathione. 

and, i guess, if i decide i need more cysteine for glutathione production, then i'll need to shift the serine (and glycine) to the methionine row to integrate these things together.

i realize that this is just one pathway in a collection of molecules that have many diverse purposes, but i'm pulling out these molecules because the literature does, and i'm taking cues from experts that have identified the value of them.

this is the reason i write this down - it helps me clarify my thoughts.

i know that what i'm saying sounds insane, but there's just too much circumstantial evidence. i'm clearly under some kind of surveillance, and they seem to think i need medication - something i thoroughly reject. that much is clear enough. but, would they medicate my food without my knowledge? i've told them i won't take anything, and the effects are clear enough -- whenever i go out anywhere and come back in, i experience these horrible effects, and they fade when i stay in for a bit. they otherwise don't seem to come up. so, it's either some kind of coincidence or something about leaving the house is causing these horrible feelings. unless it's the air outside...

i've posted here many times about the evidence left behind by somebody that is coming in here when i'm gone, some of it more disgusting than others. they seem insistent on searching my cupboards; i think they're looking for illegal drugs, maybe even out of concerns about interactions. i dunno. they're clearly looking for something. they also tend to search my fridge when i'm gone, and i think they're also looking for drugs in the fridge. i don't even know what drugs you'd keep in the fridge. i've gone out and come back and realized somebody rifled through my spoon drawer...that, i at least understand, because i remember coming across burnt spoons that my mother used for heroin.

i've never done any kind of opiates, and would probably hurt you if you ever offered me any. you would want to run, trust me. i've turned down cocaine repeatedly, but i've never tried it; i'm not vicious about rejecting cocaine, but i don't have any interest in it, either. i would get very angry with you if you offered me meth, though. i've never done mdma, but i'm open to it, in theory. i've smoked marijuana and tried some psychedelic drugs, but it's been a long time since i've done the latter and i might never do it ever again. i haven't had any alcohol at all since march of last year, but i haven't sworn off of it, i just don't like to drink alone. there's an almost full bottle of vodka in the cupboard...

i don't know what they're giving me, but sometimes it feels like a mushroom trip and sometimes it feels like too much coffee. those are my reference points - that's what i actually understand.

broadly speaking, what people call "mental illness" and assign to "chemical imbalances" is just variation, much of it reducible to personality.

maybe you like getting high all of the time. fine. go do it.

i don't. 

leave me alone.

all that any drug that any doctor could ever give me will ever do is give me a headache and make it hard to read.

that's the best case. the worst case is it'll give me an aneurysm.

what these people do is give you psychotropic drugs that make you high, they don't give you cures to diseases; most of their diseases don't have any clinical definition, and consequently don't actually even exist.

sometimes, people like getting high enough that it blunts whatever else they're feeling. but it's not a cure to anything because there's no underlying condition in the first place - it's just somebody getting high.

it's legitimately complete bullshit, through and through.

so, all that any drug that any doctor could do for me is get me high - and i don't like getting high on a regular basis. i prefer to live a largely straight-edge, sober lifestyle, and find the experience of drug use to be frustrating and annoying.

the best way to cure me is to give me more coffee.

that said, nobody has ever diagnosed me with an imbalance (to my face) and nobody has ever prescribed me anything.

this whole idea of "chemical imbalances" is nothing more than pseudo-science. they can't test for most of these things because they're past the blood-brain barrier. so, they get some clown to make a guess based on behaviour, which is the most unscientific way to deal with something that you could possibly imagine; these people are not scientists, and they're not doctors, they're quacks working for drug companies. 

in theory, i'd accept the premise that you could test me for something and prescribe me something based on that test. that's fine - that's science.

but, deciding that i have an imbalance based on my behaviour is not science, it's magic. that needs to be rejected on it's face.

so, no, i won't take anything prescribed to me, because there's no justification for it besides some idiot making a guess. and, i'm well within my rights to tell that person that they're not a scientist, and i don't respect their magical thinking.

i don't need these drugs and i don't want to be on them and the people doing this to me belong in jail.

clearly, i'm trying to eat well, but my appetite is very poor.

the drugs being given to me in stealth are having the following effects on me:

- weight loss to below an 18.5 bmi

- agitation

- violent thoughts

- difficulty focusing

- headaches

- chest pains & heart palpitations

i've also lost a lot of weight recently, to the point that my pants (size 5/6) are routinely falling off.

i'm guessing i'm down to about 125 pounds - and i'm 5' 9".

i'm dealing with a headache tonight that might flip over into a migraine. as usual, it seems like the pigs upstairs put something in my food when i was out yesterday, and i'll have to suffer the consequences of it - agitation, headaches and violent idealizations. they seem to think they're giving me some kind of medicine, but they fail to realize that i don't have an imbalance, and that what they're giving me is causing problems rather than solving them. but, i can't do anything besides hide inside and let it pass.

i'm also experiencing chest pains and heart palpitations.

so, i need this to stop.

the only drugs i need are the female hormones being prescribed to me. anything else that's being given to me is merely damaging my mental and physical health. and, i don't have any sort of diagnosis to justify the administration of it, especially in stealth like this.