Tobacco CONTROL tactics. ( HOW TOBACCO CONTROL DECEIVES. (See sidebar).

“SMOKERS BLACK LUNG” IS A FRAUD. See this post by Frank Davis:




The Effects of Ebola on COP 6


Have the Zealots and Charlatans finished yet? Have they finished their secret decision-making jollifications in Moscow?

The WHO is under siege over Ebola, and in any normal Industry, heads would roll. But that is hardly likely in the WHO. That is because it is not like any other Industry in that it is an Absolute Monopoly. It is a little like an Absolute Monarchy, except that no one knows who the Monarch is. Further, in the current climate over Ebola, one would think that the WHO would be fully occupied by it and that Tobacco Control would take a back seat. But don’t expect that it be so. The probability is that COP6 will be exploited with the fullest enthusiasm, once it has completed its secret cogitations. After all, the WHO President decided to avoid a conference about Ebala and attend a conference about ‘the tobacco epidemic’ instead. She rated ‘the tobacco epidemic’, which is in fact no more that a statistical chart on a computer screen, to be more important than several thousand real deaths, here and now,  with the potential for exponential growth.

Meanwhile, over in Australia, the Zealots have made fools of themselves over an opera which has tobacco ingredients. Great Art has been subsumed to politically correct ideology, which is the product of a few crazy Zealots. One of the greatest Zealots is Daube, and it was he who said that nothing is more important that Public Health – nothing. Does this not remind you of something? Do you remember how the Taliban smashed up that thousand year old statue in Afghanistan just for fun?

Further, we have had, here in the UK, the thoroughly disreputable spectacle of a “Lord” spouting the usual bumph which equates ‘help’ with ‘force’. “Forcing” smokers to desist from smoking in the open air in parks is not ‘using force’, it is ‘assisting’. I suppose that thrusting Jews into gas chambers was also portrayed as ‘giving them a helping hand’.


It is reasonable to say that Daube, Chapman, Glantz etc are not significantly different from the Taliban. They have the same suicidal tendencies (but not themselves!), the same ideology, the same rapacious money-making scams, the same world-wide infiltration, the same inhuman persecution, etc.

So do not expect COP 6 to be quietly consigned to the archives. The Zealots and Charlatans in the monopolistic and aristocratic Tobacco Control Industry cannot help themselves, you see. They are a multinational conglomerate with totalitarian and fascist tendencies.

So COP 6 will be declared to be an overwhelming success. Recommendations for world-wide taxes on tobacco will be declared to be International Law (‘proceeds’ to Daube, Chapman and Glantz). And not one national leader, such as Cameron/Clegg/Miliband, will say, “Bugger off”.


I’m not sure whether Cameron etc lack courage or are ignorant. It is hard to say. Certainly, Government Minster Milton MP (Health Minster) thought that the FCTC was “International Law”, when it is nothing more that a temporary treaty.

Because the FCTC is a treaty ratified by so many nations (probably because they did not realise what it involved), it is almost impossible to ‘reform’ it. Nor is it possible (for the UK) to control the waste of money.

Is there an answer?

Yes there is, and it is extremely simple. Simply withdraw funding until acceptable reforms have been made. Other nations can do as they wish, but the UK will act in that way.

But there are other organisations which need similar reforms. The World Bank and the EU Central Bank come to mind. Does anyone know who controls those organisations? And yet they seem to be able to force Nations to do as they wish.

Answer? Very simple. Those organisations are supposed to be politically neutral. Ensure that they are so. The UK should demand it, or withdraw support, along with allied Nations. We abhor Aristocracies. We shall not tolerate them.


Male Englishmen Should Grow Moustaches


Enoch Powell tache Tache McMilllan POlitician with tache Politicians and moustaches


Four males with moustaches.

People will recognise the first two – Enoch Powell and Harold McMillan; both English politicians of some fame. For readers from other countries, Enoch was a forthright Tory politician who was a Minister for a while. His fame lies in his ‘the Tiber will flow with blood’ speech (words to that effect) regarding immigration. There is no doubt of his intellectual power. I once went to listen to a lecture which he gave at Manchester University concerning the economy. The only thing that I can remember about that lecture was that he was of the opinion that Government causes inflation, which I have no doubt is true. Harold McMillan was Prime Minister for a good while. He was, I think, I good PM. He was of the classic mould of cautious advancement in the prosperity of Britain. It was he who told the Royal College of Physicians to get lost when they proposed that smoking should be done away with. He must have used phrases something like:

“If you are right that smoking kills lots of people, then if we force them to stop smoking, they will cost a fortune in increased pension payments. Why should we stop them from enjoying tobacco if they wish to, even if it does shorten their lives? Also, smokers pay loads of tax. Where would that money come from if we forced them to stop smoking? Buzz off” The logic of that statement cannot be denied, but the logic hinges upon, “Why should we stop them from enjoying tobacco….

I don’t really know anything about the third pic. His name was Jas Christie who was a politician in Queensland, Australia. I just thought that he looked quite ‘distinguished’ with a ‘powerful’ moustache.

The fourth is ‘Kamil Pasha’. I think that Kamil Pasha is in the nature of a surname, so there are lots of them. But his uniform looks pretty, don’t you think? And what a ‘commanding’ moustache!

Some of the pics I found are terrific. How about this one:

cameron with tache

Don’t you think that Cameron looks far more ‘impressive’, thus adorned?

And how about this:

Cameron and Bojo with taches

Cameron and Bojo with moustaches!!

There are lots more such pics here:


What is the point of this post?

For some reason or other, the ‘feminista’ keep appearing here and there. There is no doubt that some of our female MPs derive from the ‘female empowerment’ movements in universities over the past three decades or so. In so far as the ‘feminista’ rightly disputed arguments that women were ‘not capable’, I sympathise. The problem is that, according to stuff that I have read, many female university students went into politics purely to fight against male domination, and this ideology colours lots of their policy inclinations. They joined the Labour Party, mostly. But no one can be certain that there was not a deliberate ploy among these female university students to join the other parties also, and gain advancement therein. Ideology is very, very, very powerful, as we have seen in the ISIS situation. It is very odd how many people are prepared to kill themselves to prove a point, as with suicide bombers.

Now then. Ask yourselves. Is it not true that the clean-shaven Cameron, Clegg and Miliband only need to dab a bit of rouge on their cheeks, a bit of mascara on their eyelashes and a bit of lipstick on their lips to become ‘feminista’? In fact, all they need to do is don blonde wigs. Look again at the pics above and tell me that the moustaches DO NOT absolutely and comprehensively denote MALE. So, instead of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband appearing to be girly-boys, they could transform themselves over a few days into MEN. 

There is also a good argument to be made that they should grow beards, but I am not sure. I tried growing a beard several decades ago, but the attempt failed on several counts:

a) At the beginning, the growth was very itchy.

b) The hair on my head was black (then, and still mostly is), but my beard was grey.

c) I have a rather pointed chin, and the beard was sprouting horizontally in the manner of Abraham Lincoln.

d) It made me look old.

For those reasons, I shaved the damned thing off. So, a beard is optional.



Cameron, Clegg and Miliband look like baby-faced boys. It’s about time that they grew up. Only then will they be able to take on the ‘feminista’.

For the ‘feminista’ are, by virtue of the difference between men and women, more emotionally inclined to support bans of this and that if the bans are argued as protecting children. That statement is not sexist. It is realistic. The Tobacco Control Industry exploits the female emotional protection of children explicitly.


Englishmen should grow moustaches to protect themselves. They must ensure that they are seen to be MALE. No amount of ‘tripping the light fantastic’ on ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ will enhance their MALENESS. 


Girls like to be kissed by men with moustaches, but the ‘feminista’ politicians would be enraged if Cameron, Clegg and Miliband grew moustaches. The ‘feminista’ do not want to be kissed – they want to be obeyed.





Boris Johnson’s ‘faut pas’ (2)


I see that Bojo has kicked the ban on smoking in parks etc into the long grass. No credit to him for that since it should never have been proposed in the first place. Narzi and Dame ‘Silly’ Davies have shown themselves up, carried away, as they were, by the sense of their own ‘eminence’. Neither of them are ‘eminent’. Narzi might have been a decent surgeon and Davies might have been good at whatever she did, but neither of them have fought valiantly in defence of their country or produced some scientific breakthrough, or helped to create the Internet, or arrest the advance of contagious diseases in Africa, or ….. well, anything at all. It is pretty obvious that the Medical Establishment propose favoured people for ‘honours’, and that the Government accept those recommendations. That gives those individuals a veneer of ‘Authority’. It reminds me of Nathanson’s acquisition of the title “Doctor”. It was ‘honoris causa’ – equals, she was regarded as ‘a good brick’ by the people at the medical meeting which conferred the title. Her title is meaningless. The same would apply if a really successful sewerage engineer was created “A Doctor of Environmental Health”. Titles used to have something heroic about them, but they have been debased into recognition of ‘expertise’. Thus, footballers become OBEs merely because the are ‘expert’ footballers. But they must also be liked and appear on a lot of TV programmes as nice people. Lord Nelson defeated the combined might of the French and Spanish navies and was killed in that conflict. Dame ‘Silly’ Davies has ……….


I understand that Bojo has issued a statement saying that he has no intention of enforcing the recommendations of this committee. Narzi has been battered by accusations of silliness, and has claimed that the stuff in the ‘Report’ is much more devoted to other things, and that smoking in parks and Trafalgar Square are only minor suggestions.

No, ‘Your Lordship’, you have made concrete proposals which have the intent of persecuting smokers. The idea that children might take up smoking because they might see a person smoking in Trafalgar Square is manifestly nonsense.


It never ceases to astonish me that the Political Government constantly underestimates the influence of the Administrative Government. By the phrase ‘Administrative Government’, I mean the unelected controllers. This fracas about smoking in parks etc has shown, in no uncertain terms, that the Administrative Government (in respect of tobacco especially, but not alone) has overridden the Political Government. The AG has seized the opportunity to diminish the PG. People like like Bojo should be incandescent with rage.

It never ceases to amaze me that, whenever the Political Government seek some sort of ‘independent enquiry’, they always seem to appoint people who are far from independent. For example, in the PP enquiry, they appointed an anti-smoking Zealot Paediatrician as Boss. Since the enquiry was entirely statistical, why did they not appoint a ‘Statistician’?

The fact is that the Political Government has no idea what to do about anything. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are ignorant (in the sense of lacking in knowledge). That is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that they themselves understand. That is why we have a Parliament. It exists to STOP persecution rather than CREATE it.


What follows clearly is that the UK must stop allowing international prohibitionist movements from inflicting their divisive intents upon the People of the UK. Such divisive intents are clear in respect of the Millennium Goals. Oddly enough, I do agree that ‘population’ is an issue. Let us not go there tonight.


Boris Johnson’s ‘faut pas’


I am not the only one to ridicule the latest anti-smoking blather from The Tobacco Control Industry. It seems that they want massive “NO SMOKING” notices on Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square. I’m surprised that they have not also recommended that a windmill should be placed upon Nelson’s head to power the lights which illuminate the statue, and/or that the statue should be coated with solar panels to generate electricity to power the lights. Better still, switch off the lights and thus reduce global warming.

Who the heck is Nelson anyway? Surely his statue should be replaced by Arnott? Has she not saved the kingdom from SHS danger? It is true that she is just a propagandist, but why should propagandists not have statues erected in their honour if they ‘save the children’?


Which brings us to the point. Dame ‘Silly’ Davies thinks that children seeing people smoking in Trafalgar Square is different from children seeing smoking anywhere else. The ‘quango’ that Boris inadvertently created to think about the health of Londoners has come up with the same balderdash that other idiocies have come up with to improve the health of Londoners. AKA PERSECUTION AND PROHIBITION.

Now, as a result of his own incompetence, he is stuck with a ‘for the children’ demand which the Zealots will not allow to go away. Even the Chief Medical Officer, Dame Silly Davies, jumped onto the ‘for the children’ bandwagon.

There seems to be a ‘blockage’ in the minds of politicians when they have to confront what is best for children. They seem to wish to ignore the 99% of what parents do for their children and concentrate upon the 1% which demands public funding.

I can’t be bothered to investigate this Boris Johnson ‘faut pas’ thoroughly. Let us just say that he is an amusing chap who blunders about. It does not matter as long as ‘The Elite’ are in control, because ‘The Elite’ will control things, which includes the efforts of Boris.

I am surprised at the antics of Boris. I thought that he was actually a Human Being.

Thinking About the Lib/Lab/Con Response to UKIP’s Upsurge


The more that I think about it, the more astonished I am by the recent by-election results. For decades, when a by-election is held, voters have tended to vote against the incumbent Government, but not to any great extent. There will always be a group of people who, for one reason or another, are dissatisfied by the current Government’s performance. Occasionally, the majority will be small enough for the current MP to lose his seat. Generally, the protest votes have moved to the Liberals, since they provided the ‘alternative’ which was not either Labour or Conservative, or to minor parties. The question that comes into my mind is whether or not the fact that the Liberals are actually in government has played any part in the movement to UKIP. I suppose that it must have, to some extent. But, somehow, it doesn’t ring quite true. Failing a ‘lib-alike’ party of some substance to vote for, it would have been far easier for such dissatisfied voters to just stay home and not bother voting at all. After all, the extent of the UKIP surge, apart from the the special situation of Clacton, was a shock.

What could the reason be? Immigration? Perhaps, but the the complaints about immigration have been around for years and years. Why now?

I should imagine that UKIP itself is curious. If you were Farage, what would you do? If I was Farage, and if I had the money, I would have a reputable polling company knocking on doors in Clacton and Middleton to find out why people voted UKIP. I would seriously want to know what was in people’s minds. It may be just immigration, but it could also be immigration and the EU. And it could be immigration and the EU and the EU trampling on our sovereign rights. And it could also be empty pubs and bans and local authorities buggering things up. Who knows? Also, I wonder to what extent the Scottish ‘near-thing’ influenced English people in their decision-making? Should our English politicians be looking after England first and foremost? Perhaps people in large numbers are suddenly beginning to see that the Elite are just making our lives more difficult and miserable with every step the take. Don’t listen to what they, say – watch what they do.

People reading this blog (‘people like us’) highlight the smoking ban, and rightly so. It had an immediate awful effect by turning pub staff against their customers. I remember a 17 year old bar-lad trying to tell me to get out of the porch, even though it was open to the outside. I remember a bar-girl trying to tell me that I had to be five yards away from the pub doorway to smoke. They had been co-opted and, what was worse, seemed to be revelling in their new-found power. If a publican locked the doors of his pub at the end of the night and had a lock-in, he was in danger of being raided by environmental officers backed up by the police – for committing the heinous crime of permitting smoking in his own ‘home’. That is our gripe, which must also be shared by many others. But there will be those who have seen their local close down as a consequence of the smoking ban, or seen the mass exodus of smokers, and are unhappy about what has happened. Thus, for them, it is not so much the smoking ban itself which has upset them but the consequences of the ban. Those people may not be many in number, but the numbers are beginning to add up. there might also be many who have seen the anti-smoker ads on TV and have been disgusted by them, and the pictures on cig packets. Another group of people who are disgusted. The trouble is that many of these influences might be almost subliminal due to their number.

Yes, if I was Farage, I would want to know, and I would want the polling company to try its best to reveal all the possible influences. For example, I would ask people who voted for UKIP to comment on all the matters which the UKIP ‘manifesto’ contains in the form of a short questionnaire of the form, “What influenced your decision to vote UKIP”:

1. Immigration: Very much, somewhat, neither yes or no, not much, not at all.

2. Smoking ban:………………………..”……………………………………………

3. The EU:………………………………..”……………………………………………

And so on.


But it must also be true that Con/Lib/Lab Elite want to know. They may be doing such surveys even as we speak (metaphorically, of course – definitely not at midnight). But it is also not unlikely that they will be looking at the UKIP ‘manifesto’ to see how they can steal UKIP’s thunder. Relaxing the smoking ban and anti-PP are both there. Why are they there? If they were not important, they would not be mentioned, would they? Why have UKIP put those two policies into their ‘manifesto’? It stands to reason that UKIP must have some information that those two policies are significant. I could guess that they are significant, and that is why Lab/Con/Lib are avoiding them completely. Lab and Lib are hopelessly compromised, in view of their support for the ban and PP. But the Tories are not quite so compromised, even though they have failed to do anything about the persecution of smokers, or the damage to businesses. But how could they when they have had to rely upon the Libs? Better to go along with the ‘omerta’ until something breaks.

But there has been a ‘break’. The Mirror conducted a poll asking if readers thought that UKIP policies were ‘weird’. Among them was a relaxation of the smoking ban. The vote was that only 7% thought that the relaxation of the ban was ‘weird’. But I’m not sure that I understood that poll correctly. It could have asked ‘which of these policies do you think is MOST weird’. I don’t remember. Even so, only 7% thought that the amendment was ‘weird’, and it was the lowest. I’ve been trying to find that poll again, by without success. It may not even have been in the Mirror.

There are people who got themselves elected at the 2010 GE who, I’m convinced, were not true Tories, but who were anti-tobacco zealots and happened to be doctors. They got themselves elected purely to push healthist policies. They got themselves onto the HoC ‘All Party Health Committee’ and pushed madly for smoking bans, alcohol restrictions, sugar and salt restriction, etc. Tory selection committees should rid their parties of the ‘pretend’ conservatives.

But an even greater problem is the embedded Zealotry  in the Civil Service, especially as regards Health and the Environment. Both of those subjects have the backing of the UN and the WHO, both of which are not democratically accountable. But a ‘weird’ thing has happened. The WHO took its FCTC COP meeting to Moscow, and the USA and Canada withdrew their delegations, but the WHO carried on regardless. Further, the WHO banished the Press and others, including Interpol. Secrecy is their byword, even though public funds sustain them. The arrogance of the WHO (and, implicitly, the UN and EU) is there for all to see. It is beyond my comprehension that States like the USA, UK, France, Germany, etc can put up with it.

But there are very simple answers to the problem of ‘arrogance’, which is to DE-FUND. Put the UN back into a peace-keeping mode. Put the WHO back into a contagious disease prevention mode. Put the IPCC back into an investigative mode. They DO NOT rule, OK?


It must happen eventually. But leaders will have to ‘emerge’ who have the strength to stand up to the self-serving medical establishment and climate gang. Universities, in particular, must revert to being places of learning, and not political activists.


I think that we are seeing a groundswell of change, but it is hard to see what the direction is. It seems that the collapse of the Roman Empire (aka ‘Pax Romana’) was the result of the massive growth of bureaucracy in Rome, and the intrigue thereof. In some ways, we are now seeing much the same thing.

We must remember at all times that the EU is merely the result of Treaties. The law of the UK is the law of the UK, and the Government of the UK can accept or reject any suggestion of the EU. It is as simple as that. For example, there is no ‘international law’ which might force the UK to adopt the EU ‘recommendations’ about ecigs – or anything else, for that matter. The UK can, if it wishes to, just let the matter lie on the table. I do not think that people like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband understand this. The EU is a miasma created by Treaties. But it is no more than a miasma.


A Very Strange Law-Case


Anna Raccoon has drawn attention to a very strange Case which seems to have only recently ended:

It concerns a couple, A (the father) and E (the mother), who have a son with all sorts of apparent medical problems of which one is autism.

The whole thing is so odd that I would recommend that people read Anna’s description of the Case and then read the full judgement:

I find it fascinating.

The main point that Anna makes (I think) is that, when the case came before a ‘proper’ Judge, it unravelled, bit by bit, until the allegations of wrong-doing, which the parents, especially the mother, had levied at ‘the authorities’ were revealed to be utterly without substance. The FACTS revealed by the Judge’s investigations and the evidence were contrary to the claims of the parents. In fact, it seems that the parents had been inventing illnesses and treating their son’s invented illnesses with all sorts of ‘remedies’ just to support their obsession with the ‘failures’ of ‘the authorities’. But there was a key event which enabled them to focus blame. That event was the publicity surrounding Dr Andrew Wakefield’s hypothesis that the MMR vaccine caused autism. Thus, all their son’s problems can be laid at the door of the manufacturers of that vaccine, and substantial compensation can be claimed. [I am not saying that such compensation drives the parents]

The Case was brought by the Local Authority who sought court permission to take charge of the son’s care, but that is not important to a casual reader of the detail of the Case. What is important to us is OBSESSION.


There is a link here, in a vague sort of way, as to how Tobacco Control has conducted itself, except that it is the other way round. The obsessives are Tobacco Control and ‘the authorities’ are smokers (without authority, of course). TC has been inventing ‘illnesses’ for ages and blaming tobacco for those invented illnesses.


I am only about a third of the way through the Case Judgement, but, to me, it reads like a fascinating detective story. Up yours, Poirot!






I’m a bit late coming to this little party, but others have covered the by-election results with thoroughness.

What is notable to me is that the Big Three, as far as I know, have not tried to invoke the ‘one off’ spectre. That is, they have not ‘played the man’, being, in this case, Douglas Carswell, who seems to have been quite popular in his constituency. Why he should be personally popular is not explained. What has he done to improve the lot of the tens of thousands of voters in his constituency? Has he slayed some dragon? What has he done to be be regarded as wonderful?

I don’t believe it.

But even if that were so, the results in the other by-election, in the Heywood and Middleton constituency, counter claims of personal popularity. In that constituency, not a single one of the candidates was a repeat. All the candidates were different people from those who stood at the General Election in 2010. And yet the vote there for UKIP went from 1215 in 2010, to 11016 in the recent by-election.

The actual figures were discovered by Frank Davis and can be seen here:

No wonder that the Big Three are keeping their mouths firmly shut. A couple of simple facts reveal why that is so:

Heywood and Middleton 2010:

UKIP 1215 votes.

Heywood and Middleton 2014 by-election:

UKIP 11016 votes.


Clacton 2010:

UKIP 0 votes (no candidate).

Clacton 2014:

UKIP 21113 votes.


The differences are not a miasma. They are real, and they are HUGE. In both cases, voters actually turned out and went to the voting station and VOTED. This was not an on-line poll. Those who went to the voting station and voted, in person, felt that the issues were so important that they were impelled to go out of their way to vote. This is not a case of a few hundred activists swinging the vote their way.


But one might ask if this ENORMOUS change in attitudes is only about immigration. Where are the ‘academic researchers’ when you need them? Where are the ‘studies’ and ‘surveys’ conducted by eminent ‘Doctors’ and ‘Professors’? Why are they not ‘on the ball’?

Perhaps the answer lies in Frank Davis’s latest post:

The Daily Mirror is a Labour supporting newspaper. It asked its readers, in a poll, how they rated UKIP policies by ‘weirdness’. I wonder if the editorial staff were surprised that the Readers DID NOT regard “Changing the smoking ban to allow smoking indoors” as the least bit weird. In fact, only 7% of Readers regarded that idea as ‘weird’. Thus, by implication, 93% regarded that idea as sensible. If you were ASH ET AL, you would interpret that result as conclusive proof that 93% want smoking in pubs, without restrictions.

And so it should be. It is up to Publicans to make their own rules, if any.

But “what about SHS and the workers?”, one might ask. The answer is very simple even though it involves more than one idea.

The first idea is that the Zealots NEVER include time-scales, even though the ‘Doctors Study’ relied very much upon time-scales. Let me put it thus:

Doctors Study:

A) The more that you smoke, the sooner the devastating health effects emerge.

B) The longer that you smoke, the even sooner the devastating health effects emerge.

C) Combining the two, the resulting health effects are doubly devastating.



A) The more you reduce smoking, the later the devastating effects emerge.

B) The sooner that you stop smoking, the less the devastating effects.

C) Combining the two, after a reasonable length of time, stopping smoking reduces the risk of devastating effects to zero.


But there is a serious, serious logical defect in the above. The defect is quite simple, and it is THAT YOU MUST SURVIVE FOR THE SURVIVAL TO TAKE PLACE.

Do you see? That logical defect in the consequences of the ‘Doctors Study’ is what has given rise to statements that “there is no safe level of smoking”. The fact is that the Doctors Study indicated that THERE WAS a safe level of smoking, even at the heaviest of levels and for the longest period of time, provided that a person stopped smoking and survived. 

Clever buggers like Doll saw the internal contradictions decades ago and cleverly buried them. Garyk has illustrated the negative of these considerations often. He has pointed out, again and again (correctly!), that there are little differences between deaths of non-smokers from ‘tobacco related’ diseases, as compared with smokers. But what is more important is the chance of NOT DYING from of tobacco related disease. When looked at from that direction, the chance of NOT dying from such a disease is almost exactly equal between smokers and non-smokers (something like 99.2% and 99.5%  – the actual figures are not important).


But Smoking Bans are predicated upon ‘immediate’ danger. No studies have supported such a conjecture. In fact, studies such as the Doctors Study support the idea that damage from SHS would take centuries to effect the human body. Thus, for a person to be damaged to death by SHS, he would have to live to the ripe old age of, at least, 500 years (or it could be 5,000 years).


The crux is arriving. We, THE PEOPLE, do not want joisting events between the various Elites.These Elites are Fascist and Totalitarian, and we do not want them. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband represent the “ELITE”. We do not want them. But, most of all, we want the people that we elect to control the “The Government”, and not be controlled by the likes of Arnott, Duggan, Bauld, and co.

And it is so, so easy. For example, we have the Meteorological Department. It is full of experts. Tell me how a university academic named Jones came to be more important than the whole Meteorological Dept? It can only be that the academics HAD ALREADY infiltrated the Met Dept.


What is clear is that ridding the ‘body politic’ of the Zealots and Charlatans will not be an easy task. I suppose that the same must have applied to ridding England of witch-hunters several centuries ago. Removing these people depends upon “The King”. Unfortunately, the best that we have, at the moment, is a “princess”.

Why Do We Not Have a Government ‘Safety Department?


Politicians are so odd. Many years ago, the Government of the day inflicted ‘Health and Safety’ upon the population of the UK. It never seems to have occurred to them that, without considerable care and attention, H & S would become a serious economic and social pain in the butt.

Lumping ‘Health’ and ‘Safety’ together has created just the right atmosphere for massive increases in bureaucracy generally, and especially in the NHS.

Let us consider the NHS for a moment. Or rather, the ‘Health Industry’ (which knocks on to the NHS). Let us suppose that, when ‘Health and Safety’ was dreamed up, the Minister of the day who was in charge had said, “Erm…. No. We already have ‘health’ so let’s concentrate on ‘safety’. In that case, a Safety Dept could have been created and encompassed not only work practices but also food standards, etc. Of course, there would not always been clear lines between what is a matter of health and what is a matter of safety, but that is not important. What is important is that the Health Dept would be able to concentrate on its job – curing sick and injured people.

In my scenario, Smoking would not be a health matter, even though it may, indirectly, be the cause of illnesses. If smoking is dangerous, then it would be the responsibility of the Safety Dept to decide what to do. Smoking bans would emanate from there, if at all. Why would that matter? The reason is that the health aspect would come as assessments of the health effects of smoking. The people deciding on Safety Measures would not automatically be health professionals. Further, the health claims about smoking (especially SHS and third hand smoke) would receive a damned sight more careful consideration.

We might also consider ‘Public Health England’ and ask what its purpose is. At the moment, I do not see that it has any specific purpose. Is it in charge of food impurity dangers? Manufacturing plant dangers? Drinking alcohol dangers? Poisoning dangers? Water supply dangers? If it is in charge of smoking dangers, why is it not in charge of the things that I have mentioned? What in heavens name is PHE for? It seems to me to be no more than another vehicle for Zealots of all sorts to infiltrate and distort.

But one of the chief benefits of such a Government Dept would be that of relieving the NHS of costly, time consuming and unproductive anti-lifestyle programmes. It would be the Safety Dept which would be producing plans to introduce such things as minimum pricing of alcohol. I would bet a pound to a penny that effects such as ‘regressiveness’ (overtaxing the poorest people) would receive a lot more attention.

One could imagine the Sec of State for Health having a private conversation over a couple of pints with the PM. Mr Sec says to Mr PM, “I say, old chap, you know, all this blather about fags and booze and grub is expanding the health dept far too much. It is bad enough keeping these doctors at bay without having to take on the academics as well. Poor Alison is always crying. Let’s move all that junk out of the Health dept jurisdiction. Let’s move the ‘non-communicable diseases’ crap to the Home Office or the Defence Dept or something. Do you know, it would save a fortune in the Health Dept and the NHS”

“Umm….”, says the PM. “But would that not simply move the problem elsewhere with the same costs?” “No!”, says the Sec, “Things like smoking, drinking and eating effects are small beer. They can go to the back of the queue! All this talk about ‘epidemics’ of this, that and the other can be ridiculed really easily. We could say that life expectancy has never been so high. We could say that the number of obese people has been vastly exaggerated by including people who are a bit plump. We could say that infant mortality has never been so low. The problem has been that these Academics have been able to get at the Health Dept. Why don’t you create a “Safety Dept’? You could give it a posh name”

“Umm…..”, says the PM. “I’ll have to think about it and get some advice”

“Right”, says the Sec, “But for God’s sake, DON’T ask for advice from academics or doctors”


Now comes the dream.

Three months later, the PM addresses the House of Commons. “The Government”, he says, “has decided to introduce a new department in England. The Scottish Parliament might consider doing the same thing. ‘Public Health England’ is to be abolished, and its duties incorporated into a new Government Dept to be known as “The Department of Public Safety”. Specific Agencies have yet to be decided. Duties concerning the safety of food, manufacturing practices, alcohol, tobacco, e-cigarettes, etc, will henceforth come within the remit of this dept. The Dept of Health will retain responsibility regarding communicable diseases, but non-communicable disease will come under the remit of the new dept.

We have estimated that more than a billion pounds of public money will be saved due to more effective control of research and risk calculations. Further, the burden of over-regulation on industry and society will be significantly reduced.

Further still, may I take this opportunity to say that, as a consequence of this decision, the UK will no longer be a party to the FCTC, since our governmental structure no longer recognises the WHO’s involvement in the safety of our people”




The Flimsiness of ‘Public Health’


Ever since ‘Public Health’ abandoned its core concern, being infectious diseases, and turned its attention of non-diseases, such as lifestyles, ‘Public Health’s’ raison d’etre has become less and less secure. Let us be clear. A lifestyle, whether it be drinking alcohol to a given extent, or smoking to a given extent, or eating to a given extent, is not itself a disease. It is because the Zealots have somehow corrupted our language that it has been possible to talk of ‘a tobacco epidemic’. Such a phrase is nonsense since it could be equally applied to flooding. As we saw last winter, there was a ‘flooding epidemic’ in the Somerset Levels. The Global Warming extremists would, no doubt, predict ‘flooding PANdemics’, if they could. In fact, I am surprised that they have not already done so.

A lifestyle is not a disease and therefore needs not to be cured, and therefore has little to do with ‘Health’, and therefore has little to do with ‘The Health Dept’. I suspect that the linking of lifestyle to health is probably the worst error of judgement that has been committed ‘since records began’. Epidemiological studies will always be wrong because it is extremely unlikely that over-indulging in alcohol, to the extent of becoming an alcoholic, will produce good health results. In fact, one might reasonably say that such a result is nigh on impossible. If that is the case, then it must be true that an epidemiological study of that nature can never produce a ‘beneficial’ effect. Such an effect is impossible. It has been shown that moderate consumption of alcohol is beneficial, but the Zealots are not at all interested in that. They want only to study the alcoholics, and, from those studies, demand ‘minimum prices’ and such. They might study drinking as a whole, but, because of their idealism, will pick out only the worst aspects and emphasise them. That is their ‘modus operandi’.


It follows reasonably that lifestyle effects ought to have nothing to do with ‘Health’. If the Government is intent on ‘nudging’ people, there needs to be a separate Dept, which we might call ‘Safety’. ‘Health’ and ‘Safety’ are not the same thing at all. Not remotely.

And yet we have suffered a couple of decades with these two separate ideas being lumped together. That is another idea which is one of the worst ideas ‘since records began’.


It is precisely because of the establishment of an artificial link between ‘Health’ and ‘Safety’ that certain people were able to infiltrate the Health Dept and create laws such as the smoking ban. If we think about the words being used, and if we think of the reason for the smoking ban, we see that the predominant consideration in the smoking ban is “Safety”. Health, as regards the smoking ban’ is a secondary consideration.


I think that we defenders of the liberty to enjoy our lives as we wish need to be aware of the importance of words. Do not accept the phrase “Climate Change” (since the climate changes all the time). Use only the phrase “Global Warming”. Little things like that upset the Zealots, who want everything their own way.


As regards “Tobacco Control”, the Zealots created their own hell. They cannot get away from it. It is built into the “Framework Convention of Tobacco Control“. “Control” is the important word.

What does that word, “Control”, mean? It obviously does not mean “prohibition” or “extermination”. I think that it means precisely what it says: “Control tobacco usage to our fiduciary advantage”.


But what is worse is the use of “Professors” and “Doctors” (very willingly) to create non-existent dangers. It is strange that the “Professors” and “Doctors” who do the talking are rarely skilled in medicine. They are nearly always people people skilled in “Advertising”, or in the case of some of them, skilled in nothing more than ‘blithering’ (in the sense of ‘blithering idiot’).


Finally for tonight.

There are people like McKee and Bauld who have no connection with “Health” whatsoever. Their “connection” is with proving that it is possible to control by the use of words, backed up by force. Such ideas are ‘fascist’ in the sense of “State Control and Authority” and ‘totalitarian’ in the sense of “One size fits all”.

Fascism was defeated when Hitler and Mussolini were overthrown. Totalitarianism was defeated when Stalin pegged out. But both of these tyrannies have returned, but only because of ignorance in our political establishment of the recent past.


Is there an answer to the political ‘short term’ stupidity of Parliament as a whole? Perhaps there is. Much has been made of the idea that MPs could be ‘recalled’, ie sacked if the electorate decided so. But what about doing away with ‘General Elections’ altogether? Why should such elections be sacrosanct? Why not replace MPs as and when and give them,  individually, a five year term of office? But why five years? Why not three years? What we do not need is professional MPs. We need politicians who see their job as protecting the people against the “The King”. ‘The King’, as regards the enjoyment of tobacco, is all those delegates who will be blithering in Moscow.

Most of the attendees in Moscow are probably ‘health’ employees, and they are certain to applaud whatever the ‘FCTC CONTROLLERS say. Their jobs depend upon it.

But what is of the greatest importance is that people like McKee and Bauld should be revealed as frauds. For that is what they are. They do not speak the truth.

COP 6 and E-cigs


It is an old adage: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, or words to that effect. In the defence of e-cigs, there are some strange alliances appearing. Michael Siegel, for example, has been a vicious critic of tobacco companies for decades, so much so that any product which contains tobacco is anathema to him. Thus chewing tobacco, snus, heated not burnt, are unacceptable. But e-cigs are not tobacco, and so they are acceptable.

Carl Phillips is also very anti-smoking, but he is not particularly anti-tobacco company in the sense that he does not quite see them in ‘merchants of death’ terms. (Well, I don’t think so) Thus, he finds any ‘harm reduction’ product as a jolly good thing, provided that it is really, really, much ‘safer’ than smoking. E-cigs, of course, are one of those products and, again, are not tobacco.

I have been reading Clive Bates blog tonight. I’ll give you his blog address in case you want to have a read:

He has written an open letter to COP 6 delegates. I don’t know if he has actually sent it to any of them. I doubt it, since trying to find out who they are and how they can be contacted is a formidable task. So I guess that he has just published it on his blog and sent a copy to a few people whom he knows are delegates and, perhaps, to the ‘Secretariat’.

None of them will read it, needless to say. Bates was excommunicated (as were Siegel and Philips), and no one reads stuff from apostates, do they? You must cross yourself if you so much as see anything from them, never mind actually read it.

However, I suppose that it is worth his while to publish his opinion, and write these letters, if only to put the contrary view, regarding quack claims of potential ecig vapour harm, on the record. What specifically amuses me no end is that he turns the ‘merchants of death’ accusation back onto those who attack tobacco companies. He accuses them of possibly influencing smokers NOT TO switch to ecigs, and thus Zealot like S Glantz are actually just as guilty as tobacco companies of causing illness and death.


One of the interesting thing about this abomination of holding COP 6 in Russia (apart from the involvement of Russia in death and destruction in Ukraine, possibly also in the accidental (?) shooting down of the Malaysian airliner) is that the USA will not be sending a delegation. The USA has not ratified the FCTC, and is thus only an ‘observer’, but the lack of a USA presence is very bad news. I can give you a link which partially explains the importance of a USA delegation being involved, even though only as non-voting ‘observers’. Even though they cannot vote, Observers can speak at the conference. Even American tobacco companies are worried about this lack of involvement because they feel that the COP 6 might pass some way-out motions without the restraining voices of USA influence. Tobacco production in the USA is still a HUGE industry, and massive amounts of its tobacco are exported. Without USA presence, it is not unlikely that COP 6 will pass motions which are very economically detrimental to the USA specifically, and beneficial to counterfeiters and such.

What the above actually translates into, of course, is political shenanigans. In effect, it means that the Zealots must not proceed too quickly, in the USA view. Further, it might well be the case that the USA delegation might want very strict regulation of ecigs so as not to permit them to damage US tobacco exports. We must bear in mind that the whole UN/WHO organisation relies heavily upon USA approval. The USA could kick the whole UN operation out of New York any time it wishes to. Perhaps the UN could relocate to Liberia. That would be good for the economy of that country. In fact, it is a very good question to ask about why the UN/WHO all have their headquarters in the healthy, wealthy West. Why are they not located in Africa and the Indian subcontinent, if they are so worried about tobacco use and morbidity in those places? After all, these organisations are MISSIONARIES, aren’t they?

It also appears to be the case that this COP 6 also intends to force Governments to increase tobacco product taxes enormously. One must assume that this will only apply to countries which have low tobacco taxes, since countries like Ireland are already feeling the effects of ‘contraband’ operations due to their ridiculously high tobacco taxes.


It would be interesting to know how the ‘contraband’ operations work. I doubt that it is merely importing finished tobacco products. Much more likely that lots of tobacco is being imported, into Australia, for example, as raw tobacco, disguised in some way. Cottage industries can take care of the cig making and packaging. In Australia, there is a brand called “Manchester” which is not an official brand and is untaxed and is ‘popular’. It is almost impossible for Customs to ‘bust’ such cottage industries.


My gut instinct sees this COP 6 as having only 2 objectives:

1. A back-slapping, enthusiastic, congratulatory, celebration.

2. A jolly in Moscow and a sightseeing extravaganza.

3. Lots of votes for the plans of the ‘top dogs’.

4. Motions protecting tobacco companies against competition (to protect the income of the Zealots).

5. Motions to persecute the poorest people and deprive them of their little pleasures.

6. Motions to promote the growth of their own institutions.

Oh dear. There are more than two objectives.


So what is the answer for Smokers? My suggestion is to continue to scratch away at the foundations of this massive edifice. We might continue to point out (among other things) such simple facts, as Gary K has talked about again and again. The Doll ‘Doctors Study’ showed that:

85% of smokers die from ‘tobacco related’ diseases.

84% of non-smokers also die from ‘tobacco related’ diseases.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers