Other more erudite commenters have examined the Ebola Epidemic. Just to be sure what we are talking about, we are talking about an actual, real “epidemic”. It is not a world-wide ‘pandemic’, but it is certainly an epidemic in the sense of an uncontrollable spread which gets greater and greater. At the moment, it is more or less confined to certain African Countries, but … who knows where it will appear next?
At this time, the virus can only be transmitted from one person to another by ‘the exchange of bodily fluids’. Does that mean by sexual activity or what? These bastard WHO medics are hiding the truth until they can spin it. Bastards. The ‘experts’ say that they are terribly worried that the virus could ‘morph’ and become airborne.
Big Pharma has not been able to produce a ‘cure ‘, in the sense of penicillin. BUT, LO AND BEHOLD, BP expects to be able to produce A VACCINE!! WOW! Think of the market for that VACCINE!! Millions of Africans need to be vaccinated. WOW!! And how profitable will that be for Big Pharma and the WHO!
Tobacco Control is effectually finished. The future is Ebola control. Big Pharma money will move from the disreputable TCI to the ‘new kid on the block’. Especially since the emergence of ecigs.
Let us ‘warriors’ consider the future, in which the Tobacco Control Industry has declined. We must hope that it will be so. What we must do is redouble our attacks! It is true that we cannot influence MPs and the MSM, but we can blast the Zealots in every possible way on-line and in newspaper comments, etc. NEVER LET THE ATROCITIES AGAINST SMOKERS BE FORGOTTEN!!
We must always bear in mind that the persecution of Smokers is just the same as the Nazi persecution of Jews, Gypsies and Queers. The difference is only a matter of degree and time-scale.
It has been noticeable to me that many MSM sites have been disallowing comments regarding anti-tobacco news articles, especially in Australia.That is most definitely a Nazi attitude. The propaganda must be maintained – no alternative must be permitted to be published.
With the right ‘WILL’, the likes of Chapman, Glantz, and other academics could be treated in the same way that they advocate the treatment of smokers. Use your imagination. But the likes of Arnott, Duggan and co should be different. The reason is that they are charlatans! They lie, lie and lie again for publicity reasons – just to get noticed.
The WHO has no idea what to do about Ebola, even though Ebola has been around in Africa for decades. Is that surprising? Of course not! For the WHO has, for the last three decades, been filling its ranks with people who know little about ‘epidemics’, ‘pandemics’, or even the humble ‘minor flu contagion’. These people are academics, advertising executives, lawyers, etc. That is, they are parasites. They feed off the FCTC. It follows therefore that their agonising over Ebola is only skin deep. Where is the ‘money stream’?
I wonder how many readers are conversant with the greatest jazz singer of all time – Billie Holiday. OK – let’s not argue about ‘the greatest’ – that is just my opinion. One of her strangely haunting songs was called “Strange Fruit”. It was about stringing up niggers on trees for the slightest, perceived offence – a bit like Judge Jeffreys’s liking for hanging people who stole sheep. Hanging niggers were the ‘strange fruit’.
Sadly, Billie sank into the despond and died aged 44 from drink and drugs, but her singing and songs are immortal.
It may seen to be a strange jump from Billie Holiday’s decline and death to the decline (and death?) of pubs. But there are parallels. Some years before her death, she was in her pomp. Everyone loved her. Even as she declined, and her voice deteriorated (which can be heard on her last recordings), she was still mesmerising.
And so, in a way, has been the decline in our pubs. They used to be places of jollification, camaraderie, darts and card games. All have been choked to death by the Health Zealots. Health Zealots have been the ‘drink and drugs’ which are killing our pubs.
The reason that I have highlighted pubs on this occasion is simple.
Wednesday is a day when I go to the pub in the evening about 10 pm for a beer. The pub will be almost empty, but I do enjoy just having a couple of pints and, perhaps, vaguely watching football on Sky Sports. Some readers might recall that, once upon a time, I enjoyed the pub at least nine times per week – every night and Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Gradually, since the smoking ban, I have stopped going to the pub. I now go only on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday nights, and then I imbibe less than I used to. So, gradually, a bit at a time, since the smoking ban, my ‘contribution to revenue’ of the pub has declined and declined. The emptiness of the pub is witness to the fact that I am not the only one to experience the deadness of the pub. What is worse is that I have to exit an empty, massive space to enjoy a cigarette.
One of the problems with the ‘indoor public place’ smoking ban is that it takes no account of the volume of space available in a big pub. It is true that, in the past, some small pubs were very smoky – not that anyone complained or died because of that, but the magnificent edifices were not so afflicted, and they had big wall fans. The publican decided when to switch the fans on and off. There was never a problem.
Readers might wonder what I am ‘getting at’ since most of the above is already well-known. The reason is this:
Last Wednesday, one if my pub nights, I ‘forgot’ to go.
I do not mean that I forgot that it was Wednesday. Earlier in the day, I had decided to do this and that before I went to the pub.
No. I did not forget that it was Wednesday. What happened was that I forgot to go to the pub! I was messing about with the curing box and stuff, and then I was on the internet, and I just forgot to go to the pub! It was 11 pm when I noticed that I had forgotten!
That says a lot more than it seems to say. It says that the pub is no longer an integral part of my life. It says that the pub is just a sideshow in my social life. In fact, it says that I have no social life any more. My life has become introverted – apart from the internet.
But that is not the case when I go to Magalluf. When I go there (on my own), I ‘engage’ – but not in a big way. I exchange pleasantries, have little conversations, etc, but always outdoors. I NEVER engage indoors.
The pub in question is a ‘Pubco’ pub. There is no doubt that the smoking ban is responsible for their problems. Why do these Pubco Executives not pester the Government to death about the ban? More importantly, perhaps, generally, why do the Chief Executives of Food, Drink and Booze Companies not get together and fight THEIR ENEMY, which is the Healthist Monopoly. The important word there is MONOPOLY. It is a matter of fact that the arm of the ‘Iron Triangle’ which is most exposed to public scrutiny is “Academia”, because Academia has the ear of the Legislature. The only reason that this is so is that it has been organised to be so, by Zealots – especially in the Health Dept.
I forgot to go to the pub. It is easy to forget. It is easy to forget Nazi atrocities. It is easy to forget that the Nazis exterminated people, just like I forgot to go to the pub. Forget.
Individuals will forget, but that is no excuse for MPs not to shoot down the wishes of Zealot MPs in Parliament. If fact, if there is one thing which matters, it is for “Good People” to counter the Crazy Zealots in Parliament. It is one of those rare situations where there are the Crazy Zealots on one side (who ought never to have been elected) and the Sensible People on the other. There is no excuse for the Sensible People to ‘chicken out’.
But MPs seem to be docile. “Forgive them, for they do not know what they do”
I don’t know what brought this idea into my mind. It just appeared somehow. Something earlier today triggered it.
From time to time, an ‘Entertainer’ is ‘caught’ by photographers enjoying tobacco. There follows hysteria in the press, and, as often as not, the entertainer apologises in a vague sort of way. It is even worse for footballers because there is an implication that smoking absolutely destroys their fitness. One cigarette, and they become decrepit old men. Further, they are said to be ‘role-models’ for the youth, and should be chained by ‘their role’.
There are one of two entertainers that I admire. One is Kate Moss (not strictly an ‘Entertainer’, but entertaining) . She is often castigated by the press for smoking and snorting, but she utterly ignores the blandishments and caries on regardless with her own chosen way of life. She doesn’t give a shit about role-models – she just enjoys her life as best she can. Sod the role-model crap – that is just ‘nouveau morality’. Footballers, cricketers, swimmers, etc should tell the press, “Look. I shall decide when I want to become a role-model. Until then, I am just a footballer, (etc) and I shall enjoy myself as I please”. He could go further and say that the people who demand that he should be a role-model should become role-models themselves first. “Who shall cast the first stone?”
We have a gang of academics who are ‘casting stones’ in all directions in abundance indiscriminately, which stones are hurting and damaging countless numbers of people, and, what is worse, they are aided and abetted by the very people who are supposed to protect those people – elected representatives.
Frank Davis is a big fan of the singer, Lana Del Rey. She smokes openly, both on stage and off. SHE IS COOL. But there is another side to this coin, represented by the old bag, Madonna. She told the people who pay to watch her performance to sod off if they dared to smoke in the open air at a concert. She refused to perform if they did not comply. Somehow or other, she elevated herself to the state of ‘scientist’. She, as a scientist, could prove beyond doubt that SHS in the open air would kill her.
But anyone with a smattering of knowledge knows that studies such as the Doctors Study reveal that, for full-on smoking to have any effect, one must smoke FOR DECADES, and smoke a lot. The important phrase is FOR DECADES. Thus, since SHS is greatly diluted tobacco smoke, it would take CENTURIES of exposure for any significant health effect to be observed. Sure, for some particularly delicate persons (who are probably very ill anyway), SHS might be irritable to the eyes and nose, but not damaging. People with asthma should clearly protect themselves by wearing a surgical mask at all times, especially when outdoors. they should never enter places where there might be smoke, such as restaurants or churches. Well, not without their surgical masks. Of course, for such people, streets which have motors belching out fumes are not desirable places to go to. But for people who do not have such conditions as asthma, even diesel fumes, in the open air, would take CENTURIES to have any effect. That is what the Doctors Study shows.
But my main point tonight is that song-writers and the popular groups who sing those songs could have a major effect on the current attempts to destroy our culture of ‘live and let live’. NO! – Miserable puritans WILL NOT dictate how we live.
We need to go back to the status quo just a decade or so ago. And the resolution is very easy. ‘Public Place’, as a phrase, does not override ‘Private Property’. That is the fallacy which TC has imposed upon the Body Politic. It ought never to have happened.
It is for reasons such as this that it is right and proper for us all to despise current politicians. They are disgusting, filthy, stinking power-control addicts.
In Australian soaps, like Home And Away and Neighbours, absolutely no person at all smokes – not even the villains. Despite both of them having bars, neither does anyone seem to drink alcohol. Truly, the Ausies are lost. But, what we are aware of is only the ‘official’ position (as described in the soaps on TV). The reality is displayed by the recent police raid on a tobacco plant growing farm, where some 3,000 plants were growing. One ‘cop’ does not an extinction make. Rather, the ‘cop’ encourages greater secrecy and better methods, and thus a further extension of the activity.
Back to the subject of this post.
If there is one area of public communication which is not under the control of anyone, it is pop music. (I do not use the phrase ‘pop music’ lightly – I mean the wild and extravagant music of the the youth) Such music is very influential to youths, and it is normally inclined to vilify the ‘controllers’. I am very sure that ‘pop music’ played a big part in the dissolution of the Soviet Repression.
Would that it would destroy the Nanny State and the Iron Triangle! It will if musicians turn their talents in that direction!
It is very late, and I don’t fancy hurting my brain with ‘tobacco-induced elevation of cognitive consonance’ (aka ‘common sense’). So, tonight, very quickly, I’ll discuss a couple of concepts regarding curing your own, home-grown stuff. Always bear in mind that the production of good stuff is tricky – I wish that it wasn’t.
In collaboration with my good friend, JB from Ireland, certain important facets of ‘curing’ the leaves have been revealed, but you must treat this with a little caution, in the same way that all tobacco control studies always end with ‘more research is needed’.
Assume that you have several plants which are reasonably mature. That is, for the sake of this post, are sufficiently grown to have produced flowers. You do not have to wait that long to use the lowest leaves, but let us assume that you have waited.
At that point, ignoring the very small ‘first flush’ of leaves at the very bottom of the plant, the lowest leaves will be huge. I mean, about 2′ (60 cm) long and about 1′ (30 cm) wide at the broadest place. They should be ‘wilting’ – going pale green or starting to go yellow around the tips and edges. I must emphasise that you do not have to wait until that happens. The leaves will be ‘mature’ if they are full size and have been for some time – it is a matter of judgement. If you try to snap them off the stalk, and they resist, they might not yet be ready, but if the snap off easily, then they are ready. There is an obvious Catch 22 argument here – how do you know if they snap off easily unless you snap them off? Erm … I do not know. All I know is that, given the choice of snapping off leaves A and B, I am more inclined to force one or the other. But the probability is that it would not matter anyway – provided that the leaves are ‘getting on a bit’, and showing signs of ‘old age’.
Regular readers will recall that I built a curing box out of the remnants of an old wardrobe:
Is that not pretty? Cost – zero. There is a lid on top and a flap at the bottom front, and there is a window. I originally intended to hinge the flap and the lid, but I found that it was easier to just move them out of the way when necessary, which is not very often. Since I built the box, I have found that it was not sufficiently insulated, so I have used sheets of polystyrene wot I got from various sources to insulate the front, back and sides as best I can. It is not pretty, but it works.
Damn it! I am going into more detail than I intended!
OK, very simply, a ‘slow cooker’ (aka ‘crock pot’) is placed at the bottom of the box, and that provides the heat source. Leaves are hung at the top of the box and the heat from the slow cooker raises the temperature to a level which best promotes enzyme activity, which does two things: a) the starches in the leaves turn to sugars, and, b) the leaves become yellow.
Damn! This has already become too complicated! It was intended to be simple!
Having arrived at the yellowed state, ………….
Oh sod it! Far to messy at this time of night.
BUT, if I was Professor Gerard Hastings, being paid handsomely, then I would continue ‘ad inf’ – deliberately and maliciously, with malice afore-thought, extending the persecution of the poorest people to progress my anti-Big Business agenda.
But the likes of Hastings (who is, essentially, an old-fashioned Marxist or Communist) HAVE NO EMPATHY. They deal in the idea of ‘populations’ and ‘advertising’ and ‘duplicity’ and ‘big business’. Is it not weird that the likes of Hastings ALWAYS finish up persecuting ordinary people?
For new readers, the ‘Iron Triangle’ is the loop between ‘Bureaucrats, Special Interest Groups and Politicians’, but, in the case of Tobacco Control, replace ‘politicians’ with ‘academics’. Thus, the triangle is “Bureaucrats (in the UK, they are resident in the Health Dept), Special Interest Groups (being Big Pharma and Foundations/Charities), and Academics”. Given the obvious lack of any control whatsoever by politicians over the bureaucrats, the Iron Triangle is incredibly strong. It is self-perpetuating, self-financing and self-serving. Only really high heat will melt the Iron Triangle.
During Prohibition days in the USA, RELIGION occupied the ‘academics’ spot. After the failure of prohibition, the ‘eugenicists’ did not evaporate. They changed their approach. Instead of religion, ‘SCIENCE’ became the justification, especially epidemiology. I am sure that readers are aware of my opinion that epidemiology is not ‘science'; it is mathematics. It merely ‘counts’. If the counting indicates some relationship within the numbers, then ‘Proper Science’ takes over and discovers the actual, physical events which give rise to the numerical relationships. What we have been seeing over the last couple of decades has been the elevation of ‘counting’ to the status of ’cause and effect’.
As those reader who have read my synopsis of the McTear Case will know, even fairly recently (2005), Tobacco Control and the whole Medical Establishment were unwilling or unable to submit their evidence that smoking causes lung cancer to the scrutiny of the Scottish Supreme Court. They, literally, tried to ‘con’ the Court by quoting excerpts from the Surgeon General’s report, but could or would not provide actual scientific evidence. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
One could go further with the artificiality of the Tobacco Control Industry template. One could say that, since it is not scientific, then it has some purpose which is not scientific.
What could that purpose be? It is too facile to say that the purpose is to eliminate tobacco. After all, a simple Legislative Act could banish tobacco overnight (officially).
Big Pharma must have ulterior motives. Certain calculations must have take place. The link as ‘partners’ with the Tobacco Control Dept of the WHO must have been considered to be advantageous to Big Pharma.
Is it ‘way out’ to think that forcing people to ‘quit’ smoking will produce MISERY? And is it ‘way out’ to think that the ‘misery’ produced by smoking bans, especially in people’s homes, will produce a demand for ‘tranquillisers’? I use that word deliberately, although it seems to have been long superseded. But, essentially, that word is the correct word. Doctor: “I see that you are miserable and upset. I cannot help you to resolve the problems which are causing this misery, but I can give you a prescription which will alleviate the misery. You will feel tranquil, and be able to assess your problem without getting upset”.
It seems that, a few months ago, the Scottish People were unlikely to vote for independence. Now, suddenly, as a result of a poll by The Times newspaper, it seems that the Scottish People have suddenly changed their minds. Immediately, after the Times survey, ALL OF WESTMINSTER swung into action. Could I be forgiven for thinking that the Times Survey was a put up job? Is there any way to check whether or not it was or was not?
But there always seems to be a specific objective of ALL advertising, which is to exploit the worries that people have, and if they have no worries, then worries need to be created. Is it not true that the objective of Tobacco Control has been almost totally to create fear and worries?
That is certain, and it is also certain that the creation of ‘fears and worries’ has always been deliberate. Only if ‘fears and worries’ can be created can legislative action ensue.
In the title of this post appears the word ‘MISERY’, and that is the important word. I cannot recall anything that ‘Government’ has done for decades which promotes the opposite of MISERY. What is the opposite of MISERY? You might suggest the word WELL-BEING. But ‘well-being’ requires forcing people to stop enjoying what they enjoy, to ensure their ‘well-being’, which is a contradiction.
The whole FCTC Treaty promotes MISERY, and not health. Smoking bans promote MISERY, and not health. E-cig bans promote MISERY and not health. Alcohol minimum prices promote MISERY and not health. In fact, it would be reasonable to say that the whole UK Public Health Gang has, as its principle objective, to make everyone as MISERABLE as possible.
So why are our elected representatives permitting this abomination?
In the McTear Case, the Medical Establishment ‘tried it on’. They tried to get a favourable verdict on the basis of epidemiology and rumour. They failed.
I fail to understand why Tobacco Companies have not supported the consumers of their products to the hilt. I would have thought that such a defence of their customers would be a prime objective. If I was head of a group which supported smokers, I would brag about the financial support I received from tobacco companies. I would say that ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) refused to finance me. That situation arose in the case of the Enstrom and Kabat Study. When the results of the study failed to show that spouses of smokers suffered more ‘ill-health’ than spouses of non-smokers, the Cancer Society pulled the funding. Thus, E & K had not the funds to finish the study. They turned to the only other ‘interested party’, being tobacco companies, and finished the study. The study showed that there was little difference between the fates of smoking spouses and non-smoking spouses.
It has yet to be computed whether or not the wholesale attack on pleasurable activities will produce revolution. It ought to. But, by ‘revolution’, I do not mean tumbrils and guillotines. Disgrace will suffice. Perhaps we should compile a list of academics who should be disgraced. It would be easy, and we could tell our MPs who they are. The disgraced academics would be relieved of their titles of ‘Professor’, ‘Doctor’ and ‘Sir’. Perhaps we could start with “Professor John Ashton”. Perhaps he should be re-titled as “Know-all drunkard” John Ashton. But Chapman and Glantz are just the same.
Why? Because they have enjoyed decades of secret funding and the protection of the ‘Iron Triangle’.
The answer is simple. All that is needed is for politicians to ask the Zealots, “Are you sure?”
It is fairly obvious what the point of this new farcical study is.
It is to negate the obvious statistical fact that, as smoking has decreased over the past several decades, so has the incidence of childhood asthma increased in step. Thus, it is highly improbable that smoking causes childhood asthma, which TC has previously claimed to be the case.
How can that obvious correlation (decrease/increase) be overturned? Well, this study is an attempt to do just that. Clever buggers!
The trick is to claim that past smoking, while a man is young, alters his genetic production of ‘healthy’ sperm. The longer he smoked, especially if he began in his teens, the worse the effect on his ‘biological sperm production line’. Thus, the decline in smoking as a result of quitting, is not a reason to expect a reduction of childhood asthma. But that argument is faulty because, although it might excuse a continuation of childhood asthma incidence, it does not explain the increase in childhood asthma.
At a meeting of the European Respiratory Society, this paper was read. As a result, it was able to be quoted. But no one can see the actual paper. It is hidden from view – deliberately.
But the point of the fuss about this study is clearly indicated by the quote that I showed last night:
“The findings add to growing evidence which suggests that poor health can be recorded in a father’s sperm or a mother’s eggs.”
In other words, several studies can be put together into a ‘meta-study’, and forced to produce the ‘right’ result.
What THE PEOPLE fail to understand, when they read these Mail-on-line articles, is that they describe RISK. What is THE RISK? Clearly, in a thunderstorm, the risk of being struck by lightning when you are inside your home is negligible, but it is also true that going for a walk in thunderstorm is also negligible. HOWEVER, it is probable that incidences of people being struck by lightning outside, as compared with inside, are INFINITELY greater. Forget your 10 times more risky, or 1oo times more risky, or 1,000,000 times more risky. We are talking INFINITELY.
I can reverse my tobacco plant illustration. Rather than simply observing the plots 1 and 2, and trying to explain the differences in plant growth, I can begin with a THEORY. I can say that I believe that the sunniness is important, and I can watch what happens to the growth of the plants with that in mind. I can do measurements about the sunniness, and I can do measurements about the plant growth, and, if my theory is correct, the shadier plants will not do as well as the sunnier plants. And I can produce copious figures and calculations, and graphs to ‘prove’ it. I can state a TRUTH: SUNNINESS OF SITE IS THE PRIME REQUIREMENT FOR GOOD PLANT GROWTH. Erm…. My measurements prove nothing of the sort. In fact, they prove nothing at all. They are just mathematical calculations. Thus, a tweaking of the supply of nutrients could easily cause the plants in the shadier part to outgrow the plants in the sunnier parts. But the ‘expert’ epidemiologists would say, “Ah but we kept the ‘external influences’ like nutrients steady (aka allowing for confounders)”. I always ask myself how they did that, and how accurate were their ‘controls’. Perhaps this ‘control over confounders’ is the trick which permits them to produce idiotic ideas such as ‘wish-think’ instant evolution.
For that is what the Zealots have proposed. Smoking causes instant evolution.
The reason that these people can get away with such nonsense is that there are absolutely no controls whatsoever over Academia. None at all. I mean also what the Zealots in academia are telling/teaching their students. Also, I mean what infants in kindergarten are being brainwashed with.
There is an extremely simple ‘principle’ which ‘Education Ministers’ should adopt. That is that only FACTS should be taught in the early years. Absolutely no ‘politically correct’ theory. At a later stage, students might study alternative views of some curiosity, and be asked to THINK. For example, they might be shown lots of TV adverts, and be asked to look for the use of GOLDEN WORDS, like ‘harvest’, ‘platinum’, ‘gold standard’, 99%, ‘flawless’, etc, etc. And the ‘dross’ words, like ‘disgusting, filthy, stinking’.
The ‘Iron Triangle’ of Academia, Big Pharma plus the Foundations, and Bureaucrats in our Government and in World-wide Gangs like the World Bank will not MELT until someone, with sufficient support, demands it.
But, as its name indicates, the IRON TRIANGLE has enormous strength. That is why studies indicating ‘Vast Evolution Acceleration’ can be seriously given the light of day.
Finally, in the comments on the last post, I was given a list of all the contributors to the WHO and the amounts contributed around 2010/11. Vast sums of money are involved. Tonight, I have had enough.
I think that I have just coined a new word. I wonder how long it will be before it appears in the Oxford English Dictionary.
“To Asthmatise: To induce asthma in the foetus, normally with specific reference to genetic abnormalities in the sperm of fathers who have smoked tobacco at any time prior to conception”
I like that.
LegIron alerted me to the article:
A father’s smoking could damage his unborn child’s health – even he quits years before the birth, a new study has revealed.
Norwegian researchers found a baby had a greater risk of asthma if their father smoked before they were conceived.
The findings add to growing evidence which suggests that poor health can be recorded in a father’s sperm or a mother’s eggs.
I would ask you to read the bolded sentence again, and again, if necessary. Do you see what it says? Or rather, what it does not say? It implies that smoking is equivalent to poor health. If you smoke, you are in a state of ‘poor health’. Or, if you prefer, that it is possible for a health condition to be genetic, which possibility has been known for several thousand years (viz. the writings of Hippocrates). What it does not say is that it is the smoking which is ‘recorded’ in the sperm or eggs. By the way, later in the article appears this statement:
No link was found between the mother’s smoking before conception and a child’s asthma.
So the ‘mother smoking’ is beneficial! Erm…..
I decided to try to find details of this study. I thought, at first, that ASH had commissioned it, so I tried to find something about it on the ASH site. Anyone who has ever visited the ASH site will know that it is like wading through treacle to avoid the propaganda, but, after a bit of messing about and searching, I found this subsection of something or other':
It lists 10 pages if studies (403 to be exact). Whether these studies were commissioned by ASH specifically or not, I do not know. It is worth just breezing through them, however, just to see how many ‘studies’ have proven that almost every disease of the human body is ‘associated’ with smoking.
But nothing about this Norwegian study.
So I tried the ‘European Respiratory Society ‘Norwegian study’. This is what I got:
The Google search says that there are 11,400 results. I’m damned if I am going to search through that lot for a study which I am pretty sure will not be recorded there.
As LegIron said, most of the comments were dismissive. There were a couple of commenters who tried to defend the conclusions (that smoking affects men’s sperm so that a child conceived by them could be more inclined to be ‘asthmatised’) by claiming that the study was ‘science’.
I’m sick to death of stating that epidemiology is NOT science. It is mathematics. Let me explain. In my garden, I have some 60 tobacco plants distributed among Plot 1 and Plot 2. Roughly, 50% of the plants in plot 1 have reached maturity in that they they are flowering. The other 50% have simply not grown sufficiently well to get to that stage, but about 25% have still produced a reasonable crop. The other 25% are crappy. Plot 2, however, has been less productive. 0% are producing flower-heads, at the moment, but they might do so – there is still time. But, even so, about 25% are producing good sized leaves; another 25% are producing leaves worth harvesting, but the other 50% are crappy.
Now…. What I have stated is simple mathematical fact. It is true that plot 1 is doing better than plot 2. So we look for reasons. The obvious reason for the discrepancy is that plot 1 is in a sunny position but plot 2 is in a shady position. Here is the important thing:
DO THE PERCENTAGES OUTLINED ABOVE JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS THE SHADINESS OF PLOT 2 THAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Do you clearly understand the question? What I am asking is whether or not the mathematics, in themselves, justify the conclusion?
It is as clear as daylight that the maths do NOT justify that conclusion. The counting of good and bad plants does NOT indicate the cause of the goodness and badness. For example, it might be that plot 2 does not have the nutrients that plot 1 has, which may have something to do with the shadiness, but which may be correctable by the addition of fertilisers.
Oddly enough, it is this disconnect between ‘the maths’ and ‘the cause’ which allows the Zealots to make sillier and sillier claims. Without knowing the detail of this Norwegian study, it is impossible to say to what extent is is a simple mathematical correlation which has no connection at all with real reasons and causes.
We see the consequences of the ignorance of this simple fact (maths is just numbers) in the statement from Dr Cecile Svanes:
Dr Cecile Svanes, from the University of Bergen, Norway, said policymakers should warn men about how their lifestyle could affect their future children.
She said: ‘This study is important as it is the first study looking at how a father’s smoking habit pre-conception can affect the respiratory health of his children.
‘Given these results, we can presume that exposure to any type of air pollution, from occupational exposures to chemical exposures, could also have an effect.’
She added: ‘It is important for policymakers to focus on interventions targeting young men and warning them of the dangers of smoking and other exposures to their unborn children in the future.’
Do you see all the caveats and conflations in that well-rehearsed statement? ‘Can’, ‘May’, ‘Could’ result in ‘It is important for policymakers……’ But the worst thing is that these ephemeral and minute differences justify massive punitive ‘policies’ made by ‘policymakers’.
Time to wind up for tonight.
I wonder if it would be possible to push back at the Zealots precisely because ‘It is important …’ can be totally reversed. It can be totally reversed by the sheer lack of numbers of people/children involved, and the sheer lack of proof that the conflation of smoking and asthma is causative, and, of the greatest importance, the rise in childhood asthma despite the falling rate of smoking prevalence.
Is this curiously pointless study intended to cloud the well-known fact that, as smoking has decreased over the last several decades, childhood asthma has increased? Is the idea to confuse matters by claiming that it may not be ‘smoking in the presence of children’ which is responsible for childhood asthma (which has been thoroughly debunked by the statistics which show that childhood asthma has increased in much the same ratio as smoking has decreased)? [Sorry for the tautology - cannot be bothered messing about], but rather, smoking twenty years ago is responsible? Well, from a propaganda point of view, why not make the claim? It is part of the ‘iron triangle’, on a par with the WHO corrupt Tobacco Control Division. That is, the statement cannot be disputed because the disputer is outside the group who have control of the publicity.
There is some sort of witchcraft-like need for a ‘familiar’ – smoking or passive smoke – to explain ‘spells cast upon people’ (non-communicable diseases).
The craziness of this Norwegian Study is that …… Erm, what Norwegian Study? Where is it? Why is it not visible?
I wonder what would happen if us ‘Lepers’ and ‘Jews’ started to demand the publication of sources for these newspaper articles? It would not be difficult. I have defeated one newspaper and I can defeat another.
The desperation of Chapman, Glantz, Ashton, Gilmore, etc, etc, becomes more visible by the day. The anti-smoking gravy-train is decelerating. It is screeching to a halt. There is a lot of screeching, just like the noise that trains make when they come to a stop.
A crazy idea, just to end the night. Suppose that someone invented a terribly simple ‘nicotine delivery system’ which was very inexpensive? Suppose that that system comprised of a tube of dried lettuce leaf, suitably treated, which contained X amount of nicotine. Suppose that a person gently heated the tube and inhaled the resulting smoke, and suppose that the person found it delightful, and suppose that he died at the age of 90 – or 40.
So I finish tonight reiterating that ‘epidemiology’ is not an ‘ology’ at all. It is just mathematics.
What brought the above thought into my mind was listening to the broadcasts of ‘debates’ about ecigs between a certain Professor John Ashton and a certain Professor Robert West, and the same Prof Ashton and Clive Bates. Those debates can be listened to here:
It really is worth listening to those ‘debates’, if only for the comical aspects. (Frankly, if you want serious debate, don’t bother).
What I have noticed is that most of the arguments against ecigs are of the ‘what-if’ kind. Like, “What if children are attracted by bubblegum flavours?” In the mouths of Zealots, that translates into, “Big Tobacco is deliberately targeting children with bubblegum flavours”.
What I love is that, in those two radio debates, Zealot was pit against Zealot. But there is more. The whole discussion about ‘ecig vapours’ is wonderful, because it is casting doubts upon tobacco smoke ‘vapours’. When the Zealots, in a fit of glorious incompetence, declare ecig vapours to be as ‘dangerous’ as SHS, we know that the the anti-smoker crusade is starting to fall apart. Even the Professor Ashton has fallen into this trap. He said that ecig vapours contain ‘metallic’ substances (or something like that) in the chat with Bates. Bates pointed out that these substances were commonly inhaled/digested by humans and that it was the dose which was important. Ashton (probably shortening his life by five years as a result of being pissed) asked if Bates would be happy if his children inhaled the minuscule metal fragments. I can’t remember the reply, and it is not important.
A huge split has appeared within the Health Zealot ranks. But it is not only about ecigs – it is also about second hand smoke. A lot of the dispute about SHS is ‘under the radar’, but it is there.
The Roman Empire is said to have disintegrated because it created a bureaucracy in Rome which was out of control, huge, unsustainable, expensive and ‘not fit for purpose’, which led to the rapid collapse of the Roman Empire in the end. The same could be said about the British Empire. It was never REAL. It was always a delusion. It was one set of bosses defeating another set of bosses. The whole thing was delusional. But, for a time, the ‘Pax Britannica’ worked.
The point of the above is that ‘The State of the Health of the Public” is constantly fluctuating. With a population of some 60,000, 000 people, it is totally impossible for a couple of Professors here and there, despite their erudition, and their computations,to say what any individual should eat and drink. Therefore, it is not a reasonable thing to do to increase generalised punishments in the form of taxes.
Be sure in your mind that increases in taxes (on cigs, for example) with the intention of discouraging are ‘ultra vires’ as far as Government is concerned. Politicians will not admit it, of course, but the fact is that taxes are intended only to finance the State’s needs. They are not intended to punish or ‘dissuade’).
Readers might ask what I mean by “Cloud Phenomenon”.
It strikes me that the state of ‘public health’ at any given time depends upon whatever ‘epidemic’ is currently either ‘real’ (like flu) or ‘potential’ (like SHS). A flu epidemic can be quantified, but a ‘potential’ SHS epidemic cannot be quantified. In fact, unless the SHS epidemic can be quantified, there is no reason to believe that it exists. Lacking evidence of a SHS epidemic, then the only reason for hysteria is a ‘cloud’ of bits of information – big studies which produce tiny bits of differences which matter not one jot.
To finish for tonight, it seems to me that the forthcoming ‘Conference of the Parties’, re the FCTC, in Russia is just such a ‘crowd phenomenon’.
Public Health is “An Estimate of the Healthiness of the Public at a given moment in time”. It is a statistical number which is infinitely subject to error.
I intend to go on a trip at the end of October. Unfortunately, herself is still not fit to travel, for the time being, so I’ll be alone again. But, not to worry, it will be a nice break and I’ll stock up with half-price cigs.
By the merest chance, a few moments ago, herself drew my attention to our passport situation. She tells me that all the stuff on the TV about illegal immigrants made her think about our passports, and that she thought that she had had a letter about the expiry date, and was sure that they were due to expire soon.
She was absolutely right. They expired 3rd/4th September.
So there I am, planning this trip, but had it not been for herself’s acuity, I would have booked everything and paid, arrived at the airport, and been dismissed with a simple, “F*ck off, your passport has expired” (Although it is possible that the airline might have alerted me when I booked the flight, I suppose).
So I need to renew with all haste. But not tonight.
Another cautionary tale to add to the USA debacle about C and M.
I have many times tried to understand what motivates the Health Zealots. I do not mean the paid propagandists, like Arnott and Duggan. I mean the those quite powerful people who were, literally, driven by tobacco company hatred. Note – not smoker hatred – tobacco company hatred. I can imagine people like Richard Doll, who was a communist in his youth, being interested in the exploitation of the people be Big Industry, especially industries like tobacco companies, who, he believed, deliberately profit from morbidity (ill-health) and mortality (death). The important word there is deliberately. These industries, unlike, say, the coal industry, deliberately kill people for profit.
It follows from that that people like Doll have little empathy with smokers as such. In a weird way, as far as Doll is concerned, smokers hardly exist. They are irrelevant.
But people like Doll were the important ‘drivers’ of anti-tobacco in the early stages. One could include Godber, who was Chief Medical Officer of the UK, and what’s-his-name, who was Surgeon General of the USA about the same time. The time that I am talking about is around the 1960s, when the first Surgeon General Report appeared. At least it can be said that those people had ‘principles’, even if Godber recommended immoral methods to persuade smokers to quit and to deter new smokers. At least they had principles.
Those people are all gone now, and Tobacco Control has fallen into the hands of Charlatans. These people are a different breed. Even though tobacco advertising has been banned for decades, the new breed continue to harp on about tobacco companies ‘needing to attract new addicts as the old ones die off’.
But what is the attitude of the new breed to smokers? I think that ‘hatred’ is the wrong word. In fact, I think that they no longer hate tobacco companies. I think that the new breed DESPISE smokers, and see tobacco companies as cash cows.
So we see this: “SmokING is disgusting, filthy, stinking”, and “SmokERS are despicable, pathetic, addicts”. The modern-day Zealots despise us smokers in much the same way that the Nazis despised Jews. Hence, the deliberate exclusion of smokers from deliberations about anti-tobacco regulations. Our views do not count because we are despised.
I suppose that we could reasonably describe ourselves as “Desert Rats”, or some equivalent. There are already signs, via UKIP, that we are already gaining voting strength. When I say ‘we’, I mean everyone who dislikes ‘totalitarian’ and ‘fascist’ control of our ‘despicable’ choices. We Disgusting, Filthy, Stinking Rats will eventually prevail. What is important to understand is that it is not the existence of the EU but the way that The Zealots have twisted it over the years. It is right that ‘best practices’ in health care should be promulgated and encouraged among EU States, but it is not right that healthiness should be forced upon individuals by dictat (EU directives).
The craziness has not been addressed by the main three parties. Why? I do not know. It is very obvious. The “Human Rights” directives and the EU court were intended to define entry conditions for ex-soviet States. They were not intended to protect the equivalent of Guy Fawkes – the bombers who entered this country on false passports with the intention killing Britons. But our political leaders are unutterably IGNORANT. They do not seem to realise that a treaty is just a treaty. It is not a LAW, written in stone. Our political leaders can decide to ignore any EU directive, if they wish to. If the UK did so, it would be up to the other States in the EU to kick us out. We need to do nothing.
David Davies MP asked the Health Minister if ecigs were defined as ‘tobacco products’ under the FCTC Treaty. The Minister had no option but to answer that they were not. Clearly, then, the next question must ask why the WHO is pronouncing upon ecigs. It has no ‘legal’ right to do so. Ecigs are not within its remit.
And so the totalitarian, fascist Zealots continue to blunder about. Nice to know, is it not, that the future of the world is in such dependable hands.