I have been at a bit of a loose end today. The weather hereabouts has been foul – wet, windy and cold. No chance of beavering about it the garden. The whole of Europe seems to be bathed in sunshine – apart from us. I blame Cameron, Clegg and Milliband. They are so useless that they cannot even get the weather right.
————–
There is more to that last sentence than meets the eye, if you read a few newspaper articles and the comments thereto. Since I was at a loose end, I have read quite a few on-line newspapers, being the Telegraph, the Mail, the Mirror and the Sun. A really odd article appeared in the the Mail on Line:
“Fury at smoking breath test for all mothers-to-be as it is revealed one in three still light up during pregnancy”
yelled the Mail. It does not say who might have been furious – Oh, wait, the article seems to have been updated. The College of Midwives is furious as is ………… MUMSNET!!!!!
The articles STATES that pregnant women WILL be tested for CO by midwives. The article suggests that NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) HAS ORDERED midwives to test pregnant women for CO as an indication of whether they are smoking or not. Of course, NICE has no such authority. The whole thing is just another example of Tobacco Control spin.
But the important thing is the comments. How can it be that there are so many mentally ill, emotionally-driven people in the world? So many people who cannot distinguish between REAL harm and IMAGINED harm. It really is odd. In some ways, it enables one to sympathise with Cameron and co – they have to win votes, and the only way to do it is to please these horribly emotional people. And is that not entirely the purpose of propaganda? – To play on the emotions? But, to be fair, there has also been a lot of support expressed for ‘freedom to choose’ in the sense that it is the mother’s decision, and that the so-called harm is illusory.
———————-
However, more fun was to be had on the Telegraph about the EU. Some ‘senior politicians’ (whatever that may mean) have been saying that they would vote to leave the EU if a vote was taken today (which is a lovely get-out since it does not commit to tomorrow). It is odd that the vast majority of commenters see the question in black and white – either ‘in’ or ‘out’. Personally, I see it as a question of ‘mission creep’. I suggested that the real problem was that the EU was meddling in national affairs and that it had become too big, too bureaucratic and too corrupt, and that it needed to be cleaned up and de-sized and that lots of ‘competences’ should be withdrawn (such as health and climate control). The UK should DEMAND reforms of this nature and not fiddle about with budgets. If the EU refuses, then pull out. Would the UK lose trade and influence? One commenter made a very sensible comment. He said that the UK is STILL by far the strongest nation in the EU militarily, and that the EU would hate the idea of losing the UK ‘s military strength. There is a lot to be said for that argument.
Sometimes I think that the whole thing is just a huge game of snakes and ladders. The question is – does the game have a final square?
Bolton Smokers Club 
13/05/2013 at 18:27
I smoked throughout pregnancy, about 60 during labour and continued for the next 50 years. The kids are fine, no health problems at all and neither of them smoke, their choice. However my never smoking, very slim and active son had a 90% main artery blockage which was fortunately found in time for a stent so much for healthy living! I would refuse any such test just as I refuse to listen to anti smoking lectures or fill in questionaires on smoking and drinking. Good point about the military, apart from France there is no real capability in Europe.
13/05/2013 at 18:58
“… as it is revealed one in three still light up during pregnancy”
The latter part of that statement epitomises the lunacy of the current orthodoxy. One in three light up during pregnancy? So fucking what?
And it also begs the question that if smoking prevalence is down to 21% or whatever, how come 33% of pregnant women are “revealed to be lighting up during pregnancy”? Do pregnant women form a disproportionately high percentage of smokers?
Or…..
is the ‘one-in-three’ figure a gross exaggeration? One would have thought that given the torrents of propaganda, many smoking women when pregnant would give up, thus making them a lower percentile than the average, rather than higher.
Or…
is the smoking prevalence figure of 21% a complete fabrication? Personal observation tells me that smoking prevalence among British people is much, much higher than 21%.
All of which is academic, considering that is matters not a jot whether a woman smokes or not during pregnancy, apart from smoking apparently protecting against pre-eclampsia (which Rose covers in her usual comprehensive fashion over in the comments on Legiron’s current post). Ye gods, Junican, Our generation, and our children were nearly all born to mothers who smoked during pregnancy, and I haven’t noticed those generations suffering terribly from that fact. In fact, they seem to enjoy rather rude health and record longevity. All my (4) kids were born to women (2 – one gifted me two boys, the other two girls. Rather neat, really….) who smoked during pregnancy. Naturally all of them are healthy, intelligent and successful in the fields they have chosen. Why should it be otherwise?
TCI is dangerous and immoral in the way they disseminate misinformation, and the sooner they are stopped the better it will be for the health of the nation.
13/05/2013 at 22:19
Yes, they’ve somewhat shot themselves in the foot with that one for the reasons Nisakiman outlines. And of course, if the figure really is 33% the fact that we are not overwhelmed by hordes of stunted, damaged mutants kind of demonstrates that there is actually very little to be worried about and that the whole “Smoking mutates your baby” thing is just another in a long line of TC lies. What better way to determine if it really is dangerous than to have a big sample? 33% is big enough for me.
13/05/2013 at 23:07
“Smoking mutates your baby” but only if you are poor, apparently
This one caused a bit of a stir in 2008.
The best article was on the Times, but these two more or less sum it up.
“Middle-class women who smoke in early pregnancy do almost no harm to their unborn baby, researchers claimed last night.
Only women from poorer backgrounds damage their babies by smoking, because they tend to combine it with alcohol and a poor diet.”
The study by the London School of Economics also casts doubt on the traditional view that smoking during early pregnancy does the most harm to the baby.
If women stop smoking by the fifth month the impact on the baby is negligible – and even if they carry on it has surprisingly little impact on birthweight.
She said smoking throughout pregnancy shortens the gestation period by little more than a day and reduces birthweight by 5.6 per cent.
However, other factors make a significant difference. Among women with a healthier lifestyle, diet and alcohol consumption, the effect of smoking on birthweight falls to 1.8 per cent, while the reduction in gestation becomes negligible.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-514330/Smoking-months-pregnancy-does-harm-baby.html
Smoking during pregnancy is ‘not that bad’
“Smoking in pregnancy is far less damaging to the unborn baby than commonly supposed, detailed analysis suggests.
The findings, published as a report, will not be welcomed by anti-smoking groups, whose message to young women is intended to make them feel guilty about damaging their babies.”
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/smoking-during-pregnancy-is-not-that-bad-26423229.html
14/05/2013 at 01:12
Thanks for the comments chaps. I think that it cannot but be true that no one in their childhood ever suffered as a result of SHS, except for the very few who had some other problem. Since the effect of maternal smoking cannot be otherwise than akin to SHS at worst (since the placenta removes almost all toxins), then maternal smoking can have no effect unless there is something else already wrong.
I cannot emphasis that enough, since it is ‘the solution’ to all the studies like the Doctors Study – there must be some other problem for smoking to be involved in the appearance of a ‘disease’.
It amused me no end to see that MUMSNET was furious! Mumsnet was one of the sources of a survey on smoking in cars. 70% (always 70%) were in favour. Now that the prospects are actually going to affect ‘Mums’ directly, they are horrified! Why should that be so? If they want all smokers to be prevented from smoking in cars, ought it not to be even more important to find out if MUMs are LYING when they say that the are not smoking? After all, according to some comments on these newspapers, prospective MUMs who smoke should be jailed, aborted, strung up, denied care, etc, etc. Surely, MUMSNET should be in favour of these proposals (including jailing etc). How can it be otherwise?
14/05/2013 at 09:38
I think they are horrified at the thought of being treated like smokers, that righteous sense of separation they felt has all come to nought.
They can’t be told apart from us without a test..
14/05/2013 at 22:50
Excellent point, Rose! If they need a machine to test for CO in order to check whether pregnant women are smokers, then clearly smokers do not stink, nor do they have blackened teeth, nor do they cough all the time, and so on.
That might be a useful point when commenting on newspapers!