Why is it that when people are driving they think that other drivers can't see them through clear glass windows of their car?

On numerous occasions I have been happily driving along in my home town of Burton on Trent, Staffordshire, UK when I've seen another driver picking his (or her) nose, oblivious to fact that every other driver is watching them do it?

To an extent I can understand someone thinking they can't be seen when they're driving along at 50mph but when they're sat at traffic lights it's another matter entirely!

I've just been sat at lights at Burton end of Trent Bridge and some chap in a red Volvo was sat behind me merrily picking away. I thought he was going to lose his hand at one point. He only stopped when I turned round and gave him a thumbs up sign and in fact he looked quite shocked that somehow I'd been able to see him through his Harry Potter invisibility cloak (ie car windscreen).

You may ask why I gave him a thumbs up sign when what he was doing was in fact quite gross? Well, it's because recent research shows that picking your nose is good for you ...... and eating it is even better!!!!

Yes, I know it's hard to swallow (sorry :-) ) but apparently it's true. Here's a news story I saw recently:

Top doc backs picking your nose and eating it

Picking your nose and eating it is one of best ways to stay healthy, according to a top Austrian doctor.

Innsbruck-based lung specialist Prof Dr Friedrich Bischinger said people who pick their noses with their fingers were healthy, happier and probably better in tune with their bodies.

He says society should adopt a new approach to nose-picking and encourage children to take it up.

Dr Bischinger said: "With finger you can get to places you just can't reach with a handkerchief, keeping your nose far cleaner.

In light of somewhat recent news of Enzyte maker’s Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals having a lawsuit filed against them, I felt compelled to write this article. Yep, Smiling Bob isn’t smiling as much these days.

In case you missed this info, here is what happened. Based on over 1,000 customer complaints, six US states filed suit against Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals and owner Steve Warshak.

The allegations include:

• Deceived customers about efficacy of its nutritional supplements, which are not regulated by U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
• Failed to inform customers at outset of a 30-day free-trial period that they would be enrolled in a program involving continuing monthly shipment of product and billing of customers’ credit cards.
• Falsely claimed to offer refunds when terms were “so arduous and impractical that customers were not capable” of receiving them.
• Operated a telemarketing operation without registering with state as required by law.

Taking that one step further, Feds confirmed that they've frozen 23-and-a-half million dollars in Warshak's personal accounts.

To put it simply you purchase product or just sign up for 1-month trial. What happens afterwards is you automatically get billed once a month. It is very difficult to opt-out of automatic billing and almost impossible to get any refund on your money.

What concerns me is that Enzyte has been online since October of 2001. Their unethical billing practices have not changed since then and yet it took over 1000 complaints and over 32 million consumer dollars before US government took action against them. There could, and should be alternative means of stopping unethical business practices, before such repercussions are suffered.

Now with a company this size being more or less uprooted, does that mean less penis enlargement or male enhancement SPAM in our mailboxes? Probably not. For every one male enhancement company that goes down there are 10 that are popping up. And they are all trying to get a piece of pie.

When you think about something like this happening, it is almost an automatic response to think that because government got involved that means that product is horrible. I would beg to disagree. First of all as stated earlier allegations all point toward unethical business practices, it does mention that customers were deceived of efficacy of product; however that does not imply that product did not work.