Only the problem here is that she clearly doesen't understand the basic laws of physics. "We don't know yet how to create energy" implying that, sometime in the near future, a Hadron Collider-esque machine will just start zapping pencils or teapots into existence from nothing. Then she goes on to, albeit through a winding route, say that the universe is massless. And her evidence behind this? "E=MC2". Now I understand that E=MC2 is the underlying formula that brings the whole Theory of Relativity together - but that doesen't mean you can just apply it to anything you want and say you're right. I couldn't rob a bank and then justify it in court by quoting Einstein, life doesen't work that way. And it's Steven Hawking, not Steven Hawkings. Flitting onto a very basic explanation of transforming energy (technically correct, though it's clear she has something against her neighbour's dog), she then tried to say that homeopathy was just transforming energy - this isn't an explanation - every chemical reaction involves transforming energy, and since most medications involve a chemical reaction or two, this doesen't give any scientific backing to homeopathy.
To be honest, she didn't look like a professor or expert on anything - more like a housewife who'd been convinced by a commercial on the Homewares Auction channel and was determined to tell all her gal pals about the wonders she was privy to. My suspicions were confirmed when she told the audience that we're all vibrating, using our ears, with either (and there was specific categorisation) plants, machines, objects or animals. The final nail in any lecturer's coffin is evidently, when they start playing Twenty Questions with the audience; god knows what she meant when she said "vibrating with machines". Obviously her husband's not up to much in the bedroom.
Our government today decided to try meddling in medicine by sacking its independant advisor on drugs - because he said that alcahol and tobacco were more harmful than cannabis. Obviously this flies in the face of the recent reclassification of marijuana from C to B. My personal view is that most things should be straight up legalised - it's my own decision if I want to swamp my veins with alcahol or nicotine, and I'm sure many people would be willing to risk schizophrenia for the occaisonal joint (I myself don't touch drugs - I don't like the idea of injecting or snorting or smoking things).
Besides the medical side of the argument, there is the very real threat that, with drugs comes crime. But if the said products were sold through accepted channels - Tescos or Sainsburys or Bargain Booze - then this would be nullified, no? It's a person's own fault if they overdose, ultimately (and there could quite easily be ways of limiting someone's consumption/purchasing power). Everything in life needs to be taken in moderation - too much of any substance can damage your health - whether it's weed, beer, caffiene, Sunny D, chocolate, bubblebath, carrots - everything!
***
Cheerleaders can't be real - nobody would do that for fun. Universities cannot seriously be impressed with that, and there isn't any monetary gain, surely? They look ridiculous, jumping up and down shouting the alphabet out to the crowd like a group of trainee preschool teachers. And who the hell invented pom-poms? Was that some sort of private joke that got taken too far? No. The simple answer is that they don't exist. Hollywood invented them sometime in the mid-eighties and has just spent a massive amount of money placing them in every teen movie ever, to give us this weird, farcical impression of highschool America. What other explanation could there be?