I was directed to the RCP website the other day for some reason or other and came across this:
Tobacco: RCP joint seminar in European Parliament
23 January 2013.
Following the launch of a revised EU Tobacco Products Directive at the end of last year, RCP is co-organising a high level seminar in the European Parliament on 19th February 2013 to present and discuss EU plans with MEPs and representatives from the European Commission and the current Irish Presidency of the European Union.
RCP is partnering with the European Public Health Alliance, MEPs Against Cancer, the Association of European Cancer Leagues, and The Smoke Free Partnerhip.
The event will also feature an exhibition on tobacco control in Europe which will include the recent RCP publication on “Progress, lessons and priorities for a smoke-free UK” which looks back over the half century since publication of the RCP’s landmark report “Smoking and Health” in 1962.
The Zealots really have got everything sewn up tight, haven’t they?
The URL for the above is:
At the bottom of the above quote, you can download the pamphlet “50 years since smoking and health”, which is a series of essays written by the usual psychopaths like Brittan a Gilmore:
I read through the propaganda looking for statistics on the beneficial results of the anti-tobacco drive, but there was not a lot. The best I could find was this:
The 1962 report focused on cancer (especially lung cancer), cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction and stroke), and chronic obstructive lung disease (now termed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – COPD) as the principal diseases caused by smoking. These remain responsible for the great majority of smoking-attributable deaths to the present day, but Smoking and health was far from the last word on the nature and extent of smoking- related disease. The British doctors study, begun in 1951, continued to identify risks for morbidity and mortality, and to specify the degrees of risk more precisely through 50 years of follow-up. The overall risk of death for a continuing lifetime smoker was estimated at 1 in 4 at the 20-year follow up, but, after longer follow-up experience, was raised to 1 in 2. Among adults aged 35–69, annual all-cause mortality attributable to smoking in men peaked in 1965, at 7.57 per 1,000, declining to 2.1 by 2000. In women of the same age, the peak came in 1985, at 1.62 per 1,000, and declined to 1.08 by 2000. Among older adults, peak smoking mortality came later: 1975 in men and 1995 in women. Total deaths from smoking continued to rise through the 1960s, peaking in 1970 in men, when 35% of all deaths were attributable to smoking, and in 2000 in women, when 16% of deaths were caused by smoking. Declining smoking prevalence led to substantial reductions in cardiovascular and respiratory deaths, but most strikingly in deaths from lung cancer, which for young men in their thirties declined by 90% between 1960 and 2000.
[The above is from the first essay by Professor Martin Jarvis Emeritus professor of health psychology, University College London]
I wonder if the above professor can be trusted? Let us look that the final sentence:
Declining smoking prevalence led to substantial reductions in cardiovascular and respiratory deaths, but most strikingly in deaths from lung cancer, which for young men in their thirties declined by 90% between 1960 and 2000.
Got that? 90 percent!!!
OK. Let us look at the figures:
In the whole of the year 2000, guess how many young men aged between thirty and thirty-nine died from lung cancer…….. A total of 42! [Out of a total of male lung cancer deaths of about 25,000 in that year]. If that figure is 90% less than in 1960, then the 1960 number must have been about 400. So the most striking beneficial result of 40 years of propaganda, persecution and billions of pounds is to have postponed the deaths of about 360 young men.
Can we trust the rest of those statistics to actually mean anything? I haven’t quite finished the statistics which I have been working on, but it should not be long before I can publish something.
I wonder when someone will see what awful quacks these Emeritus Professors are?