The McTear Case (in which ASH ET AL were thrashed) again.

I am now just about halfway through reading The Judgement. It really is long and difficult.

I’m not sure whether or not I am wasting my time reading through this stuff since ASH ET AL have totally ignored any evidence which does not support their assertions. Tobacco Control is a juggernaut, totally out of control, ploughing on through the seas of science, pushing science aside and leaving a turbulent, destructive wave in its wake. Every science, other than its own cherry-picked ‘surveys’ and ’studies’ is smashed (under the pretext that ANY information which is produced using funds provided by tobacco companies is, de facto, untrue). Since few organisations have the money to pay for ‘studies’ and ‘research’, only their own studies and research (paid for by Government or Big Pharm) actually exist.  But let us look again at what the Judge in the case said about Tobacco Company ‘expert evidence’, the experts of which were paid by Tobacco Companies to do the work necessary to appear as experts:

“I do not accept as an a priori assumption that funding from the tobacco industry is tainted.”

He went on to say that the ‘worth’ of the study depends upon the ‘actuality’.

We can see the effect of ASH ET AL propaganda in the following quote:

“At that time it was not unusual for scientists to receive funding from the tobacco industry. No tobacco company had ever prevented him from publishing his research. It had, however, become unusual in the UK for medical or scientific research to be funded by the tobacco industry and indeed had latterly become impossible because universities and hospitals, in which this type of research was conducted, had formulated a policy not to accept funding from the tobacco industry. Both the Medical Research Council and the Welcome Trust had adopted policies under which they declared that they would not fund research for either a scientist or his institution if he accepted funding from any part of the tobacco industry. In order to accept funding from these bodies, the acceptance of support from the tobacco industry was precluded.”

What does that actually mean? It means, in my opinion, that only those who can afford to pay for research which is anti-tobacco can be allowed to fund research.

There is so much that is pertinent to our thinking and it is so detailed that the mind has difficulty in taking it all in. That is where ASH ET AL have a huge advantage. They can shout, “SMOKING KILLS!!!”, and yet, by any reasonable understanding of that phrase, it ought to mean immediately, in the same way that a bullet in the brain kills, and not some vague ‘contributes to a slightly premature death, depending upon how much you have smoked and for how long – or it may not happen at all’.

Earlier this evening, I picked up my reading of The Judgement again. There were pieces of evidence which I thought that we ought to know about. I decided to copy/paste them into a word doc for the time being. The trouble is that the ‘worthy quotes’ started coming thick and fast. So I now have a doc with lots of lengthy quotes! And some of them are full of medical jargon.

Am I wasting my time? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is all worth while if people know more, in the sense that it is easier to see why the propaganda of ASH ET AL is lies.

For tonight, I am going to highlight just one thing. This should be interesting. This is the evidence of a Dr Karr, who gave evidence as an ‘expert witness’ in favour of ASH ET AL:

 ”Table 7-4 gave figures (modified from Rohwedder and Weatherbee 1974) for five histologic subtypes of carcinoma in smokers and non-smokers. For squamous cell carcinomas, 98% were stated to have been in smokers and 2% in non-smokers. Dr Kerr said that it was from this table that he derived his figure of 98%.”

Remember that Dr Karr is a Holy Zealot. You should also be aware that this ‘squamous cell carninoma’ refers to certain specific cells in the ‘breathing tubes’ – the bronchi –  especially, just around where they split into two ‘tubes’, one leading into the left lung and the other into the right.

Read those sentences again ( and there are more such statements regarding the 98% of such cancers being in smokers). Note that only 2% of such cancers are in non-smokers.

QUESTION: WHERE ARE THE SECOND-HAND SMOKERS WHO GET  ’SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA’ (SMOKERS CANCER)? There are none. The non-smokers referred to are people who definitely had no contact with tobacco smoke, so they can be excluded. If only active smokers get ‘smokers’ cancer’, then SHS does not cause smoker’s cancer. The statement came from the Holy Zealots themselves! The evidence, produced by the Zealots themselves shows definitely that SHS does not cause ‘smokers’ cancer’. QED.

Enough for tonight.

UPDATE 3.30pm Sunday, 26th February.

There was another point which slipped my mind as I was writing the above last night which is also important.

One of the reasons for the emphasis that only smokers  contract lung cancer was to exclude the possibility that their cancers could have been caused by other factors. We think of general air pollution and specific exposure to carcinogens at work, among others.