So, the People of Greece have voted “No” to the bail-out proposals. If history is anything to go by, what will now happen is that some minor amendments will be made and there will be another referendum in a few weeks time. That is what happened re the Mastrich Treaty and what happened in Ireland. However, there is a possibility that this event is different. I’m not sure, but I would say that the Greek People have given their government instructions to refuse further ‘austerity’, since it is this very austerity which is holding back growth.
But to be perfectly honest, I haven’t the foggiest idea what has been going on. Greece hosted the Olympic Games. Everyone made fortunes except Greece, which was left with a mountain of debt. How can that be?
What I find to be astonishing is the ease with which these debts are created. What we have been seeing is the aftermath of a tsunami of debt creation. For what purpose were the debts created? Were they to build roads? Were they to build hospitals? Were they to pay for the import of Daimler buses which had been made in Germany?
Or were they to pay for excessive pension provisions, shortfalls in tax revenues, smoking ban implementation, etc? It is a strange sort of bribe which turns out to be a loan with interest.
Has Greece learnt from the Cyprus debacle? Do you remember that? Something very similar happened there. The Cypriot government over-borrowed and fell into difficulties. The EU solution was that bank account owners had to take a ‘haircut’ (lose, say, 10% of their deposits). There was hell to pay. But the Cypriot government had to accept because the run on the banks and their own perilous financial situation meant that they could not pay staff wages or pensions unless they agreed.
Did the EU Elite deliberately contrive these situations by tempting governments like Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and, to some extent, Italy, to take on loans which they could only service via continuing growth (and, possibly, deflation of the real value of money)? Here is a quote:
“Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.”
(EU founding father Jean Monnet)
Do you see? Suppose that the Cypriot crisis was deliberately contrived by overgenerous lending. When the shit hit the fan, a crisis occurred. The EU Elite solved the crisis by taking just a little more power over the Cyprus government. Greece seems to be in the same position. It was tempted to take loans. It cannot repay even the interest. The government cannot pay pensions and staff because it has no euros. Another loan is required, but that will not be granted unless a little more freedom is relinquished. What freedom? Well, it could be acquiescence with EU Health Policies. How do we know since negotiations are secret?
What was to me a real eye-opener is the ease with which the FCTC meeting in Moscow was closed to public visibility. That was a real eye-opener. It is reasonable to assume that secrecy is normal in these publicly funded organisations.
There may well be a host of conditions attached to the loans, for all we know.
But the secrecy can work both ways. For all we know, the Greek government may have agreed some sort of arrangement with Putin’s Russia. The Chech Republic is in the EU but uses its own currency – the corona. Heavens! The UK is in the EU but has its own currency. Why should not Greece revert to the drachma, for heaven’s sake? When I went to Prague, the hotel I stayed it was quite comfortable with the idea of accepting euros in payment, at a given rate of exchange. Shops also were comfortable with that idea. Why should they not be? And why is the UK so abnormal in that it does not automatically accept euros in payment at a given exchange rate? Are we backward, or something?
Why did Cameron permit the PP legislation to go through in such a rush at the last minute? Would that have happened if the policy was about school dinners? It can only be that PP was of no importance at all. Cameron tossed a scrap to the health zealots to shut them up, but it did not matter one iota. It is like hospitals having dozens of “No Smoking” signs on the outside of the hospital buildings. No one gives a toss. The hype about banning smoking on hospital grounds is just hot air – hospitals have had “No Smoking” signs all over the outside for ages. No one takes any notice. Why doesn’t the government pass a law that smoking is banned outdoors on hospital grounds with huge fines for hospitals which do not enforce the ban?
Why do we smokers not have ‘possès’ (small groups of volunteers) to call these illegal demands out? The reason is that we ought not to have to have such ‘possès’. It is like having roaming smokers on a beach where smoking is banned. It makes no sense, since nothing positive can come from it.
Defiance has to take a different form. I hope that the Greek defiance is not just a chess-like ploy – swap a pawn for a pawn. I hope that the Greek defiance is deeply entrenched in a wish not to be slaves of the EU Empire.
The Southern ‘States’, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy, have something which the rest of us have not. They have year-round pleasant weather almost all of the time. They need not pay vast amounts of money for central heating, which they might only use for a couple of weeks in the depths of winter. They can sit outside almost all year round and enjoy the sun. I have observed that many Spanish people are particularly fond of bread and vegetation as a staples of their diet. They seem less inclined towards sausages, fried bacon and such. There is no place for the nonsense of ‘dieticians’. Instead, hospitals provide superb cancer treatments and such.
Does the EU have a future?
Not as it is currently constituted. It needs to be completely broken up. It is stupidly costly, elitist, and interfering.
However, if States made it their business to rein back the control exerted by “EXPERTS”, there might be a chance that EU nations could adopt common ideals over time. Thus, rather than Hollande, French PM, interfering with Greece, he might stop thousands of ‘migrants’ milling about around Calais. The simple solution would be to move the camps, with English agreement, to Jersey or somewhere similar. That is, an island which is halfway between. There, these people could be given work and contribute to the economy. They could be offered transit to similar camps in the Outer Hebrides or to South Georgia, where they could make a real contribution. Or, perhaps, to Siberia, with Russian permission. Siberia is almost a continent, desperate to be opened up just as the wild west of America was. The influx of North African youths would surely jump at the chance to be pioneers in Siberia.
Thus, it is apparent that the EU is a ‘fair weather’ apparition. Should we be surprised that the Elite cannot cope with adversity other than to create further adversity?
Further, should we be surprise that the UN, the WHO, the IMF, the World Bank are all conceived as ‘perfect’? We should not be surprised since they are the creatures of The Elite.
If the UK is not careful, it too will become a Greece. Its carcase will be picked over by the vultures of the EU Elite, just as Cyprus and Greece are being pecked for every morsel of nourishment for Global Wealth.
Communism failed, and rightly so, since it reduced individuals to cyphers. The EU is Communism by another name. And yet, if it were not constituted on typical economic lines (which could have been left to the Common Market), it could have been a force for unity of European peoples. That is, that the xenophobic fears could have been assuaged. Instead, the EU is making them worse.
The EU is badly constituted. It it was up to me (!), I would start all over again. I would place the EU headquarters in Iceland. I would place the UN headquarters in Siberia. I would place the WHO headquarters in Somalia. I would place the Security Council headquarters in Libya. I would place the FCTC headquarters in the Antarctic.
The really, really important thing is that the People of Greece must hold firm. If, in their understanding, people can retire a 55 and get a pension, then they must accept the consequences. Those consequences need not be burdensome, provided that the level of pension is low. Further, it is not unlikely that pensioners will work to increase their income beyond the minimum provided by the pension. It is not for the State to interfere in such circumstances.
Greece can sort itself out. What is most important is that The Elite in the EU must be stopped from milking the People. Thus, Greece, if it remains in the EU, must demand absolute disclosure of costs, bribes, back-handers, ‘quid pro quo’s, relationships between World Bank, EU Central Bank, IMF, and demand to know to what extent those organisations act in areas which are not really within their competence. For example, what role has the World Bank in sending men to the Moon? I would suspect that the answer is ‘None’, and yet the World Bank seems to have been infiltrated by anti-smoking zealots.
How can the UN, World Bank, IMF, International Settlements Bank, EU Central Bank, etc, etc, be reformed? They cannot. They must be abolished. They must be replaced without Fanatics being on their boards. The activities of humans create the banks, and not the other way round. The other way round is slavery.
It is curious that the word ‘fanatic’ was linked to the Roman word for ‘temple’. Even 2000 years ago, the idea of ‘blind faith’ was regarded with some distrust. Rather than ‘blind faith’, nowadays we can substitute ‘ideological certainty’. The ‘faith’ isn’t entirely ‘blind’ – there is likely to be some element of reality. We could take the example of Frank Davis’s ‘Doctor W’. Frank gave described how Dr W screamed, “Filthy! Fithy! Filthy!” at his son when he found out that the son had been smoking. At a guess, I would say that that incident occurred forty years or so ago. Dr W was a big noise in the British Medical Assn. But where did Dr W’s anguish come from? We can imagine his face as he screamed, “Filthy! Filthy! Filthy!” – all screwed up as though in pain: full of anger and frustration. How does a doctor of medicine become so unhinged? I think that we can describe Dr W, despite his education and medical experience, as a true ‘fanatic’.
There is something very interesting about fanatics. I think that, subconsciously, they have doubts, but they try to push the doubts out of their minds. It helps to mix as much as possible with other fanatics to keep the doubts at bay. There is no doubt (is there?) that fans of a particular football team love to flock together. Football grounds have special ‘home’ segments where home fans can congregate, sing their songs, chant their chants, moan their moans. We observe similar meetings in tobacco control.
The Olympic games take place every four years. The World Cup every two years. Why does the FCTC bureaucracy need a meeting every year? In fact, why does it need a meeting at all? It needs an annual meeting to keep the fanatics fanatical – to allay those doubts: to slap backs: to congratulate and to obsess about the wonderful successes. I have heard quite a lot of videos of meetings of TobCon’s and there seemed to be an oft repeated phrase: “WE CAN MADE A DIFFERENCE!!!” So the attendees go back to their appointed places full of enthusiasm and with their doubts allayed for a year or so, and their ‘idealogical certainty’ reinforced once more.
Should we describe Arnott as a fanatic? I doubt it, somehow. I doubt that she would be the slightest bit interested in tobacco control were it not that her job is CEO of ASH London. If she had not succeeded in getting that job, she would have got another one which involved propaganda and marketing. She is a professional propagandist, that’s all.
It is very difficult to decide who are true fanatics and who are the people who are using fanatics. Dr W was a true fanatic. Many commenters on newspaper articles are clearly fanatics. There are fanatics in parliament. The former Liberal MP Williams was clearly a fanatic. But what group of people is controlling and using the fanatics?
One of the problems with fanatics is that they know no boundaries. They cannot have boundaries. Boundaries would suggest their ‘ideological certainty’ has limits, which, of course, is impossible. Only the destruction of the tobacco industry and the eradication of the tobacco plant throughout the world would constitute finality. But the tobacco plant ‘nicotiana’ is ubiquitous throughout those zones of the Earth where it can self-seed and prosper.
However, boundaries are arising. The Australian Government must surely be concerned about the costs of the riot over the smoking ban in that prison. It is clear that those who proposed the smoking ban in that prison did not give a damn about the consequences. That is true fanaticism. But note how they get away with it. Why is no one blaming them for the costs of the riot? Why are Australian politicians not calling for the a change of plan? Why do they not see that the riot was entirely a consequence of fanaticism?
So we come round, slowly and carefully, to the realisation that those who profit from the fanatics, and who have been controlling the fanatics, are losing that control. Smoking bans in mental institutions, where people are effectively prisoners, and smoking bans in actual prisons, are the product of fanatics, and not of the controllers of the fanatics. It is a little like the situation in Wales over ecigs. The fanatical health minister, (Doctor) Drakewood (?), has taken things into his own hands and wants the harmless ecig banned. The probability is that he was never in the loop of controllers, and is thus a ‘loose cannon’. But he is big in the BMA, and may therefore be acting for the fanatics in the BMA.
I think that there should be a public enquiry into the Australian prison riot, but it will not happen because politicians have lost their basic ‘raison d’etre’, which is NOT to rule but to check up on the rulers. In theory, in the UK, the Monarch still rules. She has Government Departments, such as the Health Dept, the Revenue, Foreign Affairs, etc. She chooses a person elected by the People, the PM, to create a cabinet of Ministers to oversee the Government Departments. It is important to understand that, theoretically, Government Departments belong to the Queen. It is Government Departments which propose laws, even if politicians suggest what those laws might be and who can block those laws. “The Queen’s Government” is in charge, and “The Queen’s Government” is the Continuing Civil Service, and not the politicians ‘passing through’. To make things worse, the ‘Continuing Civil Service’ is now bound to the EU bureaucracy. It has become a true Aristocracy over which elected representatives have no control. Do you think that Cameron has any idea what to do about the EU? Of course not! He is just one human being with a limited brain capacity. To protect himself, he must act upon ‘advice'; and who are his advisors? The Continuing Civil Service!!
Isn’t it weird that, in recent history, whenever a single ‘strong man/woman’ takes control, the result is war and carnage. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao se tung, Ghengis Kann, etc, etc, etc. It is unending.
Is it ever going to be possible for humans to live in peace with their neighbours? I doubt it, because there will always be Fanatics urging, propagandising, advertising, exaggerating, experimenting, banning, hyping, profiting.
Finally for tonight.
I think that it is important for politicians, and those who elect those politicians, to understand the limits of the capacity of politicians to influence events. It is no accident that smoking bans were enacted – they are easy. It is no accident that Cameron enabled PP – it was easy. It is no accident that the prison smoking ban in Victoria, Australia, was imposed – it was easy. It was no accident that a smoking ban in mental institutions in the UK was imposed – it was easy. Bans on smoking in pubs in the UK were easy – publicans were threatened with enormous fines or imprisonment.
And the elected representatives permitted it! It is really weird that things have to get worse and worse and worse before someone cries: “STOP!” If that were not so, we would still have ‘witch finders’ in England.
‘Something must be done’ about the FANATICS. And the solution is quite simple. Evaluate charities, university departments, quangos, local authorities. etc, and de-fund them if they promote negatives (aka bans) of any sort. Fund only those ‘charities’ which are positively active, like hostels for the homeless.
Why is it that this obvious ideal is not clear to politicians? There is not and never has been any advantage gained from bans. For heavens sake! If ‘health and Safety Ruled OK’, would the mission to put a man on the Moon ever got off the ground? Of course not! The dangers were too great. After all, a ‘child or young person’ might have got the idea that he/she could stand on a jerry-can of petrol and blast into orbit around the Moon. Not nice, and especially for ‘over-weight or obese children or young persons with ADH or learning difficulties, or who have some position on the autistic spectrum’.
I fail to understand why it is that no one seems to understand the basis of the NHS. It does not exist to prevent death. That is the most important thing to understand. No one is immortal. But it is true that there has recently been much scandal about certain hospitals which have not prevented death. Or rather, which have not performed well, statistically, in the death-prevention league.
One must to bed.
To me, it seems absolutely clear that the whole Health Industry has taken on an immortality zeal. In fact, there seems to be a vague suggestion that dead bodies, such as King Richard 2, could, given the right treatment and infinite costs, be revitalised.
There was a story on TV a long time ago. It involved a scientist who had discovered an ‘elixir’ which stopped ageing. He had created it and taken it himself as ‘proof of concept’. The problem was that it had taken him 40 years to produce enough elixir to arrest his own ageing. He was funded to produce the elixir on a big scale. But, every ten years or so, when he was asked how he was getting on, he said that he was ‘making progress’. The story made it clear that he was in no hurry. Bureaucrats came and went, lived and died, and, five hundred years later, they were still funding him and he was still saying that ‘he was making progress’. I cannot remember how the story finished – Rotter! But it is true – I cannot remember.
There is no doubt, in my mind, that Aristocrats are using smoking to sell some sort of immortality. Perhaps they have to in order to justify the rip off of wealth and impoverishment of ordinary people. People who work physically, whether emptying bins or fixing roofs are far more valuable than lawyers and such. Physical workers should therefore be paid more. The greatest earners should be physical workers. If a bank clerk earns £500 per week, a binman should be paid £1000 per week. If bank clerks don’t like the difference, they can always become binmen.
Yesterday, we saw that the word ‘fanatic’ originated from the Latin word ‘fanaticus’. It appears that the indirect connection is with the word ‘fanum’ – temple. Thus, a person described as fanaticus’ was ‘of the temple’, meaning, I suppose, ‘devoted’ in the first instance, and then ‘extremely devoted’ as time passed, until, by around 1500, the term came to mean ‘excessively devoted’ to the extent of ‘frenzied’. The word ‘dervishes’ leaps to mind.
We saw also how the word ‘fanatic’ had been reduced to ‘fan’ to describe a person who was a keen supporter of anyone or anything, mostly concerned with sport. Thus, the phrase ‘a Man U ‘fan’ could describe anyone who ‘supported’ Man U, even if that support was nothing more than watching Man U matches on the TV occasionally.
It is perhaps a very good thing that the word ‘fan’ was disconnected from the word ‘fanatic’.
I have often used the word ‘Zealot’ to describe a frenzied anti-smoker. That might be the wrong word. ‘Zeal’ is not a bad attribute. For example, the people who worked on the spacecraft which took mankind to the Moon must surely have been ‘zealous’, meaning ‘enthusiastic’ but also ‘meticulous’. That is quite different from ‘fanatical’. ‘Fanatics’ are not interested in detail. They have ‘a belief’. If necessary, such (minimal) detail as is required can be discovered.
Problems arise when ‘fanatics’ gain power. It seems inevitable that fanatics will gain power. It is awfully difficult for ordinary people to understand that even the cleverest of people, such as university graduates, can become frenzied (fanatical). The ‘Frenzy’ drives some people to do everything that they can to get control.
It is a sad fact that persons who are not ‘frenzied’ tend to defer to the frenzied. It happens all the time. Imagine, for example, a group of frenzied people who are doctors and professors in unis, who want alcoholic beverages to have ‘a minimum price per unit of alcohol’. Imagine also a group of frenzied MPs who fight for the same policy. It would be far easier for Ministers to capitulate than to fight against that proposal. Why? Because the frenzied have all the emotional arguments – “FOR THE CHILDREN!” And yet, it must surely be true that frenzied people (fanatics) are only, say, 10% of the decision makers.
How do the fanatics manage it?
Reluctant as I am, I must invoke the example of Hitler et al. Hitler et al might well have been well-meaning when they were first elected, and they might well have been well-intentioned, in a fanatical way, when they ensured that no other party could possibly be elected in place of them in the future. Communist regimes did the same thing. But having ensured their own continuity, they then took a huge leap – they became omnipotent. They became ‘FANATICS’ in the sense of crazed, frenzied, Gods. They decided that Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and Smokers were ‘bad for the children of the Reich’. No other reason was needed. For the ‘children of the Reich’, it was a wizard idea to exterminate those people. Such people must not be seen, and the only way to do so was to get rid of them – permanently.
It isn’t difficult to see how ‘fanaticism’ converts into fascism and totalitarianism. How can it be otherwise?
And so we come back to our own situation, as smokers, in today’s world. A group of fanatics got control of the WHO. It isn’t hard to understand how easy that was. Despite the repeal of anti-booze and anti-tobacco temperance laws, the Eugenicist Movement still existed. After WW2, it rose again. In the 1950s, children’s comic in America were featuring anti-smoking stories. A favourite was a sort of Superman – a chiselled jaw hero, well-built, white, and perfect, battling against a character called Nick O’Teen, who was drawn almost exactly in the same way that the Nazis drew characters who were Jews – nasty little people with thin faces, narrow eyes, hooked noses, hunch-backed, greed expressed all over their faces. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand why any sensible person actually bought these comics for their kids. Note the word ‘kids’. Take yourself back to late 1930s Germany and imagine your ‘kids’ being encouraged to become ‘fanatics’.
There is an unbelievable craziness about Tobacco Control. In the first place, the very name is nonsensical. “The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control”. Erm… How can you control ‘a thing’? Tobacco is ‘a thing’. You cannot ‘control’ a thing. You cannot control ‘water’ in itself. You can control the ‘movement’ of water, but you cannot control water. It is just a thing.
So, imagine a different set of word. “Treaty to Eliminate Tobacco and Eliminate the Tobacco Industry”. That would be honest. “The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control” is inherently dishonest in every possible way, most obviously by the use of the word ‘control’. It ought to read ‘prohibition’ or ‘elimination’.
It has always been the case, as anyone who has been on a committee must know, that most of the members of the committee do not know what to do. In the vast majority of cases, that does not matter because the matter is explained to them and they vote according to the information which they have been given. For the most part, the Secretary or the Chairman will explain. There may be questions, but for the most part, committee members will accept the explanations and vote accordingly. I was Treasurer of a Golf Club for several years, and you would not believe how difficult it was to:
a) Cut the waste of money on ongoing and unnecessary things like ‘the current valuation of the land’ (especially in view of the fact that the club did not actually own the land).
b) Promote use of the course by ‘golf societies’ in quiet times.
Those two are only examples. The fact was that few members of the committee, when attending a meeting, knew that a couple of members had some agenda which suited their own, and their friends, desires. Those were the most difficult to counter, and were most likely to make enemies for The Treasurer. Fortunately, ALL members of committees accepted my ‘good faith’.
But that is all ancient history.
We seem to be living in an era of distraction. ‘Reality’ (like the incidence of lung cancer in smokers as compared with non-smokers) does not lead to finding cures for LC – it leads to persecution of smokers. If it were true that smoking causes LC, then the cure for LC ought to have been discovered decades ago. I don’t mean stopping smoking. I mean finding the actual molecules in tobacco smoke which cause LC. Not vague claims of thousands of chemicals, but actual specific causes in individual cases.
You would think that Ministers in Government would be able to recognise the existence of FANATICS, would you not? And you would expect, would you not, that Ministers would see the evidence of Fanatics when such evidence displays itself – for example, smoking in the open air above hospital territory. A comical idea is this: if a person invented a car which could be elevated so that it was suspended in the air in a hospital car park, would it be subject to parking fees? My point is that smokers do not smoke ON hospital grounds. They smoke in the air ABOVE hospital grounds. The air above hospital grounds does not belong to the hospital or the Fanatics.
There is a very strange ‘complex’ at work which has no real foundation. The complex is that it is OK, from the WHO point of view, for millions to die from the effects of extreme poverty, but it is not OK for millions NOT to die from extreme poverty.
Our politicians are mostly affected by the ‘disease’ of ‘Fanaticism’. It is easy to get excited and jump for joy. It is not easy to tell the jumpers to sit down and listen.
SHS (second-hand smoke), in the quantities seen, is absolutely harmless for a normal persons. Persons who suffer from asthma, angina, colliwobles, hysterical outbursts, fear of the unknown, should not go to pubs.
It is gone 2.30 am, so this is a preliminary thought. The idea needs to be discussed.
A definition of ‘fanatic’ from the ‘Cambridge Dictionaries Online’ is:
“Informal: a person who is extremely interested in something, to a degree that some people find unreasonable:
EG. A fitness/film fanatic.
Disapproving: a person who has very extreme beliefs that may lead them to behave in unreasonable or violent ways:
EG. Religious fanatics.”
I suppose that it in inevitable in today’s emotional world that even a Cambridge dictionary cannot avoid indistinctness. For example, ‘informal’ suggests that there is a ‘formal’, and yet the dictionary does not describe a ‘formal’ meaning of the word. Instead, it produces an ’emotion’ – ‘disapproving’.
So what does the word ‘fanatic’ mean?
Perhaps it is as well that the word was shortened to ‘fan’ to describe a person who follows a particular football club. Thus shortened, the word has no connotation of madness. A Man U ‘fan’ might never go to see a match, but might avidly follow Man U’s results, position in the league, signings, etc. A different ‘fan’ might have a season ticket for home matches and travel to away matches. Another ‘fan’ might respond to a question about which football club he supports by saying, “Erm… I am a Man U ‘fan'”.
But what exactly is a ‘FANATIC’?
Do I detect the word ‘fantasy’ in there somewhere?
Here is a little more:
“Origin of FANATIC.
Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple — more at feast
First Known Use: 1550″
The above sentence is badly punctuated, but makes more sense as expanded:
“In Latin the adjective fanaticus, a derivative of fanum, “temple,” meant literally “of a temple,” though the more common sense was “inspired by a god” or “frenzied”. The word was borrowed into English as fanatic in the 1500s with this sense. In the following century the word was applied to members of certain Protestant groups who argued for their beliefs—in the view of most people—with excessive enthusiasm, acting as if they were divinely inspired. Eventually, fanatic was applied to anyone who showed extreme devotion to a cause”.
Fanatic, fantasy, fantastic…. All those word apply to tobacco control.
I must think about it.
This will have to be a short post since I dare not be tempted to blather on too long since I must get up earlier than normal tomorrow.
Some time ago, I burrowed into ONS Mortality stats going back to 1970. By that year, smoking had reached its zenith. (Actually, I went back further – to about 1950 – but, at the time, I was only interested in the period of time after smoking started to decline, ie. post 1970). I found that lung cancer, as a cause of death, had declined over the forty years to 2010, but not nearly as much as smoking had declined.
In very general terms, there are some difficulties in drawing conclusions:
1. How much has treatment for LC improved such that it could be considered that, for any particular person, his LC could be considered to be cured?
2. Is there any evidence that the much vaunted ‘delayed effect’ is true?
3. What have been the different experiences of males and females (which I did not bother with at the time)?
You see, as far as I know, there has been no repetition of the ‘Doctors Study’, or other study using the same criteria and started from scratch, say, 15 years after the start of the Doctors Study – say, starting in 1965 or thereabouts. I think that the Zealots (Eugenicist/Prohibitionist-in-hiding) deliberately set up a small number of large studies about the same time studying the same thing. I cannot be sure, but it seems that the commonality between these studies was that non-smoking status was the benchmark against which others would be assessed. That is, a non-smokers was a saint, and everyone else was a sinner.
In the past couple of months, I have been intending to revisit the ONS stats and pull out what information might be gleaned. You see, Tobacco Control has lost sight of its ‘scientific’ origins. What was important in the Doctors Study was the VAST difference between the occurrence of LC among heavy smokers especially and non-smokers. The fact that LC was rare among smokers was not important in their thinking. Only the difference between heavy smokers and non-smokers mattered. That is fine, except that, over the 50 years of the Doctors Study, nothing was changed. All the measurements were the same. No account was taken of the Clean Air Acts of the 1960s. Non-smoker status remained the benchmark throughout the 50 years.
So, why is it that the Doctors Study, or something close to it, has not been repeated over, say, the period from 198o to 2000, taking into account improved treatment and cures? Why has the Doll Doctors Study become akin to a ‘holy bible’?
Sometimes one feels that it is a waste of time even bothering to look. Had I had that attitude when I summarised The McTear Case, I would never have started. I was naive at the time and assumed that it was worth doing.
I must overcome that feeling and set to.
What I hope to find is that not much has changed – that the numbers are much the same. On the other hand, I would not wish to cheat as Tobacco Control cheats. But I must also not submit readers to masses and masses of figures. No, the idea is quite simple. It is hard to be sure, but it might be important to compare the figures for LC deaths in young people (say, beneath the age of 30) over the 40 years from 1970 to 2010.
I have in mind to split male and female figures. I have in mind to extract figures for sample age groups over sample periods of time. IE, say, 60 year olds at 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010. What was the difference between LC deaths as a proportion of all deaths at each point? It may not prove anything, but it might be interesting to know even so. I don’t mind what the outcome might be – just what have been the facts.
I shall finish with this thought. Whatever might have been the cause of LCs from about 1900 onwards, even if it was caused by a combination of multiple factors, like genetic susceptibility, the Zealots will always claim ‘that smoking is unnecessary”, as compared with, say, diesel engine exhaust fumes. They have already used that trick again and again.
So I’ll make the attempt. I hope that I am not wasting my time.
The Ecig Debacle Rolls On (Grantz’s Latest Bodge)==Calgary (Canada) “Derek James From: City should butt out of controlling e-cigarettes” === Greece===Pics of Leaves01/07/2015
It is hard not to be amused. I assume that everyone knows about Grantz’s (Sorry, Glantz’s) latest perversion of ‘pseudo-science’ (yes, you read that correctly – not only is the stuff pseudo-science, it is perverted pseudo-science). Dick Puddlecote took his claims apart and so did Michael Siegel. Basically, what Grantz said was that smoking prevalence is not falling as quickly as it used to be, but more people, as a percentage of the remaining smoking population, are making quit attempts. So, he says, since the smoking population is getting smaller over time, the increase in ‘quit attempts’ shows that more and more of the ‘surviving’ smokers want to quit. He interprets this to mean that the remaining smokers are actually ‘softening’ in their determination to carry on smoking.
It means nothing of the sort! In fact, it shows the opposite! Think about it. I used the phrase “…. in their determination to carry on smoking” deliberately in the previous sentence to illustrate a point. That point is that quitting does not depend upon ‘determination to quit’ (which is why I used the opposite idea of ‘determination NOT to quit’). The word ‘hardness’ in the remaining smoking population describes the continuation of smoking and not pious intentions or wishes to quit. Thus, the study itself shows that the difficulty of stopping smoking, regardless of ‘quit attempts’, exists.
Grantz concludes that ecigs should not be promoted because ‘the softening’ (of attitudes) means that they are not needed. But his own study (which shows ‘the hardness’ of actually quitting) shows that he should be welcoming ecigs if they help those ‘hard’ smokers who have tried again and again to quit without success. In other words, ‘quit attempts’ do not mean ‘softening’ in hard-core smokers. ‘Failure’ of quit attempts means ‘hardness’. I think that Grantz got mixed up between adjectives and nouns.
The City decided that it did not like people cooking and eating shark fins and concocted an reason to ban it – it was said that sharks accumulate mercury in their fins which would poison people who ate them. A quote:
“Of course, this was a sham to distract Calgarians from the fact that council had no authority to enact the ban. No councillors were truly motivated by concern over mercury poisoning. To his credit, Coun. Andre Chabot did not support the ban, because he saw it as an attempt by a handful of his colleagues to codify their feelings into law.”
The author goes on:
“Well, it’s happening again. This time, council is about to enact a ban on vaping. And just like the previous ban, some councillors (spurred on by Alberta Health Services executives) have prioritized their disapproval of vaping over restraining themselves within their proper authority. The adopted narrative this time is that vaping is unsafe and a nuisance; it should therefore be banned in all public spaces — including all private property to which the public has access. It’s prohibition all over again.”
Needless to say, the article follows the fiction that SHS is utterly and completely to be abhorred because of its mystical death ray qualities, but at least it supports the ‘high moral ground’ position of vapers. But I still find it sad that ‘the vaping community’ has had to turn upon smokers in its attempt to justify its position. In effect, it wants to be seen as a ‘cut above’ those disgusting, filthy, stinking smokers. I suppose that there is no other way, and I can’t say that I blame them. Not everyone would agree with me on that, but I see no other way to stop the onward march of the Zealots. A line must be drawn, and that line could be the treatment of vapers.
But there are always people who undercut their own position, aren’t there? People who just don’t see that the Zealots give no quarter. For example, here is the first comment on that article:
“If people smoking e-cigarettes would refrain from doing so indoors, and on public transit, and other areas where regular cigarette smoking is not allowed, I wouldn’t have an issue. Unfortunately, I have been stuck on a train where I couldn’t get away from said people vaping, and having to breathe and smell their e-cigarette pollution.”
I know that the quote is not from a vaper, but watch this:
“I’m a vaper and I agree Alyssa. They shouldn’t be vaping where smoking is not allowed. And they should also be considerate when vaping in areas where it is allowed.”
Do you see? Painful, is it not? Here is another:
“I live in Ontario where a new bylaw went into effect that restricts vaping where tobacco smoking is already restricted. Like many vapers I talk to, I don’t have an issue with that. Neither do I have any issue restricting vaping products to those of legal smoking age. But to insist that vaping is a gateway to cigarettes is preposterous”
What???? He does not have an issue with vaping being treated as smoking? What sort of twisted intellect could complain about ‘the gateway affect’ whilst agreeing with vaping bans? In fact, you could reasonably say that the guy has got it altogether the wrong way round! It is more likely that there is a ‘gateway affect’ than that ecig vapour is dangerous. That is because ecig vapour contains no toxins and therefore has been proven not to be dangerous (by any reasonable yardstick) whereas the possibility of a ‘gateway affect’ has not been disproved (which it cannot be, of course).
There are only 19 comments. Read them and be amazed at the ignorance and lack of clarity in the thinking. Is it just me, or is there a class of person whose intellectual pathways are a messy mixture of logic and emotion? For I just cannot understand the failure of so many people to understand that what other people do is none of their business, or that private property is private property, regardless of the artificial construct of ‘public places’ (private property open to the public).
Do I despair? Of course not! The more that tobacco control pushes, the harder will become the resistance. It is in the interests of pure smokers that TC demands Ecig bans (not that I want them to succeed!).
So Greece has defaulted. What has physically changed? Nothing. What has happened is that some entries in ledgers on computers have not been made. I suspect that the Troika do not want people to understand this. In Greece, nothing has changed – or rather, that is the situation unless the powers-that-be bugger physical events up. Tourists will still arrive and spend money, locals will still serve the tourists, taxies will still pick up fares, bakers will still bake bread, etc.
To put it as simply as it can be put, what Greece will need for some time is SUPPLIES. It will need supplies of fuel, food, and such things, especially those things which its tourist industry needs in the short term. It is not about macro-economics and international banking. The Greek Government, its banks and its people must act is though it is at war. It is not at war, because it has no real, physical army at its doors, but the EU will do its best to destroy the Greek infrastructure without dropping any bombs.
We must wait and see.
Ed gave me some plants. I planted them out and, over the past couple of weeks, quite a lot of the ‘sand lugs’ (the first flush of leaves) have gone very pale green, partly pale green and yellow of fully yellow. This is not odd since Ed has cultivated the plants with some force (if I may put it that way – heat, light, fertilizer, water, cloches, etc). I picked those leaves and towelled them. Over three days at most, they all turned a bright yellow.
For fun, I have a couple of pics:
My mobile does not take the best of pics. You need to imagine that the leaves are coloured bright yellow (which is why they are so shiny). The leaf at bottom right has indeed gone somewhat brown. This afternoon, I pegged them out on the washing line in the sun to dry them. Strangely, they did not dry very much. Anyway, eventually, I decided to microwave them. Here is the result:
Those colours are pretty accurate. Some leaves, or parts of leaves, have stayed quite yellow, some have gone light brown and some have gone dark brown. I like it. That is the way that it should be. That is nature at work.
Excuse typos – I’m off to bed.
Somehow, earlier today, I came across a piece about the twin towers atrocity in New York. I started reading it and became more and more fascinated. The question that the piece asked was: “Where did the two towers go?” The point was that the amount of debris after the collapse of the towers was just insufficient to account for all the material used in the towers. 500,000 tons of steel in each tower somehow turned into dust. There wasn’t an awful lot of concrete since concrete was only used in the floors. All the walls were made of steel. There are a lot more oddities. Some people have said that the video films of the aircraft hitting the towers are faked. They say that the aircraft should have crumpled, and not penetrated the buildings like a knife through butter. At least the wings should have broken off. They compare the strike of the aircraft with that of a lorry hitting a brick wall. I don’t know about that. If the outer skin of the towers was not really very strong, I can certainly imagine 500 tons of aircraft travelling as several hundred MPH ripping through that skin. Look what happened to the Titanic. Another interesting point concerns the aviation fuel, kerosene. The aircraft clearly exploded when the kerosene ignited, but ‘experts’ have said that the fuel would have burnt out very quickly. Bang! And its gone. In fact, videos seem to indicate that that is what happened. There was a fireball of exploding kerosene which quickly faded to be replaced by fires, presumably being anything flammable within the building. But the floors were built from steel and concrete. The temperatures from the kerosene would not be high enough to melt the steel structure. If you watch videos of the strikes, you can see that the explosions hardly affect the structures at all. What, inside the building, could possibly burn at such a high temperature as to melt the steel/concrete structure on floors both above and below the the point of the strikes?
I shall read on for a while……
My little mind does drift around a lot.
Suppose that you were the head person in a village, either because you are ‘the elder’ or because you were elected. Suppose also that you have duties which have costs, like keeping the village water supply (a nearby stream) clean. You need to employ people to do the cleaning. So, you call a meeting of the villagers. You address the meeting: “Fellow villagers. As you know, last week 20 of our people had severe tummy troubles which made them shit a lot. It was not nice at all because we could all smell the stink. Thankfully, no one died. I have discovered that our stream has become very mucky. I think that the reason comes from crap being put into the stream by the nomads who have been living up the road. I have talked to them and they have promised not to dump shit in the stream. But can we trust them? I think not. So, for the time being, I propose to hire Fred to keep the stream clear of obstructions and to insert a filter upstream. This filter is quite simple. Fred and I worked it out. It is basically woven reeds. But Fred needs to be paid at least the minimum wage. I propose therefore that every adult villager pays me 1 penny per week with which I shall create a charitable trust fund. What do you think?”
Up stands villager A: “Elder, you know that I have my own well. Why should I pay?”
Elder: “It seems like a good idea to spread the cost over the whole village so that no one person has to pay more than they can afford”.
But many other villagers have their own wells, and they also refuse to pay.
“OK”, says the Elder, “What we shall do is establish a ‘water duty tax’. Anyone who draws water from the stream will have to pay the ‘water duty tax’. The tax will be 1 farthing per skin-full of water”. Villager B stands up: “But, Elder, you know that Mrs B and I have ten children and we need lots of water. We are poor and cannot afford your ‘water duty tax'”.
Elder: “I shall call for a vote. All in favour of a ‘water duty tax’ raise their hands: For 70%, Against 25%, Don’t know, 5%. Motion passed”.
Villager B: “But, Elder. I still cannot afford the cost of water for my family. What shall I do?”
Elder: “Tough. You’ll have to pay or do without. You might call the ‘water duty tax’ a punishment since no one forced you to have ten children. That is up to you. The motion has been passed. The ‘water duty tax’ starts tomorrow. Fred will be on duty and will be collecting the tax. He will clean the filter for ten minutes every morning and will spend the rest of the day collecting ‘water duty tax’. The people have voted for it. Tough”.
As a good villager, B is torn. He cannot afford the ‘water duty tax’, but he and his family need water. What can he do? He makes a plan. He decides to go upstream of the filter during the night and take the risk of there being nomad shit in the water.
After a while, Elder finds out about B’s activities. He calls a meeting of Villagers. “I have discovered that B is going upstream of the filter and extracting water therefrom. This is not on, chaps. In the first place, B has no right to risk the health of his ten children by drawing water from above the filter; also, he is unlawfully depriving the commonwealth of much needed revenue from the ‘water duty tax’. The ‘water duty tax’ is paying for much more than the cleaning of the stream and the repair of the woven reed filter. It is also paying for the ‘witch-free initiative’ (WIFI for short). As a result of the benefit of the ‘water duty tax’, several witches have been unmasked and dunked. 25% were found innocent – sad that they drowned, but, well, there are always some casualties, are there not? The other 75% floated and were burnt at the stake. Let us be thankful that there were only five witches – or was that six? What is important is that the REVENUE was protected. What should be done? I propose B should be declared to be an unfit parent, and that his children should be taken away and handed over the the ‘Children Protection Unit’ overseen by our esteemed, upstanding villagers, The Good Villager, Cyril Smith and The Good Villager, James Savile. Villager B will be beaten and imprisoned; CS and JS will receive knighthoods.”
Thus was it enacted. At the end of the meeting, the Villagers congregated outside of the meeting hall. As Villager B was lead away in chains, they pelted him with rotten eggs.
And then they all went home for tea.
The moral of this story is that ‘duty taxes’ have no place in the modern world. The UK tobacco duty originated from the war with the American colonists. The UK alcohol duty originated from a war with Portugal. I have no idea how ‘petrol duty’ came about. I suspect that cars were considered to be luxuries and that the import of oil had to be ‘balanced’ in some way so that there was not a net drain of wealth from UK Business Aristocrats to Middle East Business Aristocrats.
At what point does ‘conspiracy theory’ become ‘reality’? For it seems to me that ‘reality’ only becomes visible when ‘the conspiracy’ becomes visible. For example, the IPCC has been hyping anthropogenic (man-made) global warming for quite a while now. Since global warming has stopped for a couple of decades (if it ever existed at all), only now is the self-perpetuating, money-making, academic miasma beginning to come to light.
Academia needs to be opened up to public scrutiny. There are very important questions. For example, students pay for professors and doctors to teach them. They do not pay student fees for these professors and doctors to appear on TV etc, or to undertake studies of this and that. Professors and Doctors should do such studies in their own time and not in student-paid time. Further, the student-paid effort should be a minimum of eight hours per day, five days per week, just like ordinary employees.
There are crucial events happening all over the world. In my opinion, it is critical that the people of the UK should hold tight and be strong. It is extremely sad that our politicians have weakened our national resolve over and over again while, at the same time, pretending to uphold our national sovereignty!
Freedom of travel within Europe is a reasonable thing. It should be guaranteed by the possession of a passport. Only persons in possession of a genuine passport, issued by their home State, should be allowed unlimited access. Thus, all these people who are coming from North Africa have no legitimate right to be in Europe. They must go back home.
Something crazy has happened. It seems that the EU Commission wanted to spread these migrants all over the healthy, wealthy countries like France, Germany, UK, but gave poorer countries like Bulgaria and Poland an opt out.
Isn’t that precisely the wrong way round? Should it not be that these people should be moved to places where there is space for them, but places where, if they work hard, they can make a life for themselves? Does not the Russian Government cry out for people to move to Siberia? What’s wrong with Siberia? It is a lovely part of the world. All you need is to wrap up warm in the winter. The summer is lovely – apart from the insects. But what is the problem with insects if people are used to wearing burkas and facemasks? I should imagine that there could be a wonderful enterprise in sucking insects through a massive fan and turning the resulting goo into fertiliser.
There is no doubt that the poorest people are being condemned to enduring poverty by the actions of organisations such as ASH. But ASH is only a small player. Other, much bigger organisations, are sucking the blood of workers.
It is time that our ‘People’s Representatives’ stopped that. That is what they are elected for. They are not elected to become ‘Ministers’. On the contrary, they are elected to hold ‘Ministers’ to account.
We really need a new political idea. For example. the majority party in parliament could produce a Prime Minister. The PM could then produce a Cabinet of his choosing from wherever. The cabinet may have some Ministers who are politicians, and some who are not. From then on, it would be the duty of all politicians to protect the people from being ripped off. For example, I understand that landowners are reaping vast profits from windmills placed upon their land. Erm… Whose land?
If you were lucky enough to get a windfall which magically paid you a million pounds a month, would you bother to complain if the Government stole 75% of your windfall?
Our political system stinks. It has stank for several decades. It is no longer fit for the modern world. Worst of all, the transition has objectified and persecuted the least offensive people – people who enjoy tobacco.
Tee Hee. I became 76 years old today. Tee Hee. I have now been draining the Exchequer for 11 years via my pension, and, as thing are at the moment health-wise, I see no signs of letting up. Further, as readers will know, I have been minimising my contributions to the Health Zealots’ Treasure Chest to the best of my ability. Home grown and whole leaf stuff cost very little and even Spanish bought stuff does not contribute the the UK Zealots. Not one single penny if I can avoid it.
I read somewhere today that excise duty receipts are holding up but that is because of the increases in duty. Volume sales of tobacco products are falling. But I personally used the internet some time ago to peruse official figures, and found that volume sales holding up very reasonably. Of course, it might be that the Zealots are omitting the population increase in their calculations. I don’t have the information or the skill to factor in those variables, but it is reasonable to say that it is almost certain that revenues are less than was budgeted for. Needless to say, if that were true, nothing will be said about it.
Here is an interesting thought.
Suppose for a moment that tobacco tax revenue fell through the floor and became tiny. What then would be the point of Government funding tobacco control in any way, shape or form? What would be the point of contributing millions of pounds to the FCTC Fraud, and similar sponges? Bear in mind that all that money leaves the UK economy. I would like to see a Public Enquiry into what permanent and long-lasting constructions our foreign aid pays for.
You see, it seems always to be the case that the wrong questions are being asked, and the answers are deliberately convoluted. Deliberately convoluted answers to the wrong questions.
What is our position in the EU? What are the right questions?
The first question ought clearly to be: “WHAT IS THE EU FOR?”
I think that the answer was, from the beginning, to stop European Nations going to war against each other. Looking back, we might reasonably ask why WW1 took place. But before we do so, we might reasonably ask why there was a war between the American colonists and the King of England. Why? Why did the King of England not say, “Right, you chaps in America, God speed to your endeavours! If you need help, we will help, but it might cost you. But don’t worry, we are right behind you Brothers and Sisters”. What happened was that the King of England said, “Damn it! You lot in America are my subjects. You must do as I say. I own everything and I want a good income from my colonies. So, I’m going to send my army and teach you a lesson by killing the ring-leaders and destroying/stealing their possessions. Public opinion in England is 100% behind me”.
And the French revolution. The revolution cast out the King and the Aristocrats, but it culminated in the Emperor, Napoleon.
So why did WW1, the most devastating and horrific war of all time, get started?
There have been many and various learned studies on that question, but, as far as I know, no one has really produced a definitive answer. There IS a definitive answer, but, as usual, it has been obfuscated and hidden under a form of ‘omerta’.
So the initial idea was to stop European countries going to war with each other.
I suppose that the Top People (The New Aristocrats) calculated that the reason for European wars over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had been about resources. “We need iron. We have no source ourselves, but you have. Sell us what we need at a reasonable price. No? Then we will invade and take the iron without paying you a penny. Better still, we will invade anyway so as the ensure that no one else can control your iron supplies”. Remember that the common market started as the “Iron and Steel Community”.
What seems to have happened is that the Elite have galloped away simply because there is no source of opposition. There has been no such source for many a year. Maggie T tried a bit, but lost out in the end. But who did she lose out to?
Questions rain down, many, many questions. For example, how did the EU become so involved in creating edicts (‘directives’) about health? Who permitted the EU to take such control? Who permitted the EU to control tobacco supplies? Who permitted the EU to control medicines?
Further, why is there a need for Cameron to try to take back competences? Who gave them away and why? Was the ‘giving away’ frivolous? It really is very, very, very important to know how and why and by whom the competences were given away. It is not sufficient merely to get them back.
At the end of this current process of the in/out referendum, it will not really matter that much whether we vote in or out. What needs to change is the whole political ideal. Universities must get back to the idea of teaching FACTS, and not opinions. Industrial corporations and anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, anti-fat organisations must set up their own labs etc, and not make use of OUR taxpayer-owned universities. Student fees MUST NOT fund the private interests of their teaching professors. Further, of the greatest importance, candidates for election in constituencies in the UK should be pre-chosen. That is, before the general election, there ought to be ‘public examinations’ of the candidates. By that I mean their histories. For example, it is not unlikely that people might vote for a real-life experienced person as compared with a parachuted-in university graduate who has been a researcher for an MP for a couple of years.
Enough for tonight. In a vague sort of way, I think that we are ‘getting there’.
It isn’t that ecigs might renormalise smoking; it is that smoking has NOT been denormalised sufficiently as yet, and that ecigs might slow down or stop that denormalisation. To me, that makes sense.
Enough, I must to bed.
Is it not lovely to see real conflict within the second tier of the tobacco control hierarchy? I say ‘second tier’ because the conflict is more or less confined to the UK. The conflict is between the BMA (British Medical Association) and the RCP (Royal College of Physicians).
There are two curiosities in this conflict:
1. The BMA controls the BMJ (British Medical Journal).
2. The RCP controls ASH (Action on Smoking and Health).
This is quite comical since the BMA and the RCP are very similar organisations, but the BMJ and ASH are very different. The BMJ, even though it is a propaganda vehicle, is a journal, but ASH is a lobby group. They really ought not to conflict since they do different things.
And yet Arnott, from ASH is quoted as saying, “There are people in the public health community who are obsessed by e-cigarettes. This idea that it renormalizes smoking is absolute bullshit. There is no evidence so far that it is a gateway into smoking for young people.”
She speaks for the College of Physicians. The BMJ, on the other hand, speaks for the British Medical Association, and condemns ecigs as ‘a gateway TO smoking tobacco’.
Is this a power conflict within TC?
Probably not, since the real power lies much, much further up the chain of command. It lies in the UN, the WHO, the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and in other, obscure, places. God only knows what it is costing to create a world-wide denormalisation of the simple enjoyment of tobacco, the demonisation of those who enjoy tobacco. Even so, however, because tobacco control is, in its nature, puritanical, there must come a point where pleasure reasserts itself.
As a good catholic boy, in my youth, I was blasted, again and again, that it was WRONG to enjoy. To be saintly, one must DENY ONESELF. The saints FLAGELLATED themselves for even thinking of pleasure. Funny, is it not, that the priests always wore very good quality clothes, lacked for nothing and were almost always somewhat rotund as a result of eating the best food.
Perhaps I did not see the blatant contradictions.
And yet, I see and agree with the basic philosophy of Christianity. For the most part, all of us worry and worry about little things. But when we are hit with a really, really major problem we do not worry about it. We either accept it or fix it. In a way, that is what Christianity says. “Give unto Caesar….”
There are two (or more!) possibilities philosophically. We can either decide, for ourselves, that the cosmos is just ‘a thing’ and that we human, intelligent beings, each and every individual, are just minuscule lumps of electrified matter, OR we can decide, for ourselves, that we are greater than the cosmos in the sense that we have intelligence whereas the cosmos is dumb and numb.
It is impossible not to conclude that intelligence does not trump dumb and numb.
Would it not be nice if a person, somewhere in the world, was 500 years old? Oh dear. There is no such person, despite the fact that there are those people who have never smoked, never drank alcohol, never ate fast food, exercised all their lives, placidly contemplated nature, and been good conservatives, labour or libdems. Not a single one.
We pass through this world. There is no reason that we should not enjoy it if we can. What is the most horrendous persecution from anti-Christs is the idea that a ‘healthy (!)’ body, right until death, trumps a ‘healthy’ mind. I would say that a ‘healthy mind’ trumps a ‘healthy body’ every time. We might quote the case of Stephen Hawkins. We might also quote the case of Richard Feynman, a great physicist who died ‘before his time’ from cancer. Consider the likes of Chapman, Glantz, McTee, etc, in comparison.
—Enough of this rambling. Frank Davis has the right idea. Science gets excited and works something out. That working out becomes dogma. After a while, that dogma becomes corrupted.
It has always been so.