The ATH Blog of Carl Phillips

There is something about Mr Phillips that I am not sure about. The situation is similar to Mr Siegel. Both seem to be people who have been excommunicated by The Tobacco Control Industry. It seems likely that they have been excommunicated because they did not fall in line with the opportunity to make vast fortunes from Tobacco Control. I think that both of them slipped up. Had they done a Glantz, they could have become experts in Climate Control, Fat Control, Sugar Control, And Any Other Money Making Scheme Available. IT REAL IS EASY! All you have to do is call yourself “Doctor” or “Professor”, and then do a ‘STUDY’ which shows that the product of chopping up potatoes and calling them ‘chips’ and frying said chips is DANGEROUS. The danger will only appear in thirty years time, however, but that is OK since THERE IS A DANGER…..  that THERE MAY BE A DANGER. 

Science has ceased to be about FACT. It has become about MAYBE.


Here is the Url for Mr Phillips’ blog:

He very much champions ‘Tobacco Harm Reduction’. He believes in Tobacco Harm, but at least he is ‘up front’ about his belief, even though he cannot substantiate it, other than via statistical mumbo jumbo (aka witch doctor, sharman, snake oil, everlasting life stuff).

But I am being a bit lazy tonight, and so I will avoid the Lancet, which has published another few blathers of mumbo jumbo about statistical sleight of hand about smoking harm in South Africa. That is silly because the Archbishops of Tobacco Control have moved far beyond tobacco danger directly. They are now into very clever superstition – aka a ‘miasma’ of tobacco smoke which far outweighs any other particulates in the air.

Vis this:

A ninety-year-old couple are being thrown out of their public housing home because the husband smoked in a ‘breezeway’. I kid you not.


But I must to bed. Before I do, let me copy here a comment that I made on the aforesaid Carl Phillips blog:

Gosh, Mr Phillips, you have been busy over the last couple of days!

It does not surprise me that the seeds of ‘truth’ sown by yourself and Dr Siegel fall upon stony ground. It does not surprise me because the seeds of untruth were sown many years ago. The seeds of untruth were sown when the scientists gave way to the epidemiologists, who gave way to the propagandists, who sought the money. This template has been copied by anti-alcohol bottom-feeders, anti-sugar bottom-feeders, etc. Is it not so simple? As an example, here in the UK, we have been subjected every day, for God knows how long, to ‘five-a-day’ adverts on TV for any and every possible combination of fruit juices that you can imagine. [In case you do not know, the Government paid for adverts on the TV advocating that people take at least one portion of fruit and vegetables at least five times a day]. All this unscientific stuff was based upon the lie that human beings cannot survive without fruit and vegetables. These ideas were promulgated, in the first instance, by the psychopaths in the UK Health Department. When I say psychopaths, I mean it. Only psychopaths would wish to impose a ‘one size fit all’ paradigm BY FORCE. Commerce took advantage, and the advertisers did the rest – to make money.You cannot blame the advertisers and commerce. The people to blame are the scientists, who stood by, nay, encouraged these fake practices, for their own financial ends.

It is a sad truth that Science itself is now distrusted, because no one can now distinguish between Science and Propaganda.

And yet, the propaganda has already been judged. I have mentioned before the ‘McTear Versus the Imperial Tobacco Company Case’ which took place in Scotland, and ended only in 2005, which is not very long ago. The Tobacco Control Industry brought a lawsuit against Imperial Tobacco, claiming that it was the smoking of tobacco which caused Mr McTear’s lung cancer and death. What was remarkable about this Case, and was pointed out in no uncertain terms by the Judge, Lord Nimmo Smith (the Case was brought in the Scottish Supreme Court), was that the Tobacco Control industry BROUGHT FORWARD NO EVIDENCE THAT SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER. The final results of the Doctors Study had been published, and Richard Doll gave evidence as an expert witness, but TC DID NOT DARE to produce the Doctors Study as evidence.

Why not? The only reasonable answer is that TC HAD BEEN ADVISED NOT TO by their legal team. I do not know why that should be so, but I can imagine that there have been so many false epidemiological links in the past that any such study is suspect. Further, the study itself, despite its size and the ‘quality’ of its subjects, was full of uncertainties.

I hope that you do not mind if I give a link to my summary of the Case and to the actual judgement (my summary is about 60 pages and the judgement is about 600 pages):

IF it is true that smoking is as dangerous as it is said to be, then ecigs are the greatest invention of all time, in terms of ‘the cure for’ diseases which cause death. (The nonsense of that statement should be rather obvious)

May I venture a solution to EVERYTHING?

My suggestion is that everyone should be encouraged to wear A MASK whenever they venture outdoors. Nay, they ought also to wear a mask indoors also. The reason is that dangerous particulates are in the atmosphere and we breath them second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour, every day of our lives. Think how many lives could be prolonged thereby!!!

I am not joking. If the danger to children of SHS is as severe as the Zealots say, then the danger of any smoke particulates in the air are equally dangerous. Therefore, it follows that all children must wear masks at all times.

13 Responses to “The ATH Blog of Carl Phillips”

  1. Michael J. McFadden Says:

    Heh, careful Junican, having the kids wear masks all the time might not be that far away. Whoever heard of kids wearing bicycle helmets thirty years ago?

    As for Carl, I think you’d like him. 🙂 He’s a friendly, relaxed, intelligent and tolerant non-smoking hippie type kinda like me. We’ve gotten together several times for mini-pub tours in the city and while he probably prefers nonsmoking bars and is a strong proponent of e-cigs, he’s been quite comfortable going with me to some of my smoky haunts.

    Actually I’d emailed him earlier today about getting together for some book stuff soon and we made a tentative date for sometime mid-week!


    • junican Says:

      Most Americans that I have met are fine people. I have rarely met one who is terrified of a bit of smoke. There again, it some time since I last met one – before the hysteria – so I wouldn’t know the situation now.

      Tell him to continue to hammer the Zealots about their lies!

    • beobrigitte Says:

      Michael, good point:
      Heh, careful Junican, having the kids wear masks all the time might not be that far away.

      These chiiiiildren wearing masks………Our future government…
      Be scared. Be very scared. Or hope – against all – that tobacco use kills.

      Whoever heard of kids wearing bicycle helmets thirty years ago?
      The very few I see without this stupid helmet riding a bike get the thumbs up from me.
      (Btw, these weird helmets NEED to be accompanied by skin tight lycra and the joke of the century is complete!!!!)

  2. west2 Says:

    Junican, I have read both Dr Siegel’s and Dr Phillips’ blogs for quite a while.

    It seems Dr Siegel wants to eliminate tobacco. He claims to be ‘ostracized’ yet look at the language. One day claiming to be outside TC and the next saying ‘we in TC’. I gave up on Dr Siegel when he showed no compassion for an elderly patient denied a cigarette. (A long time ago – Gaby’s patient). He will condemn ‘going too far’ yet only as it impacts the credibility of TC.

    On the other hand Dr Phillips sums up his position, in a recent post (, as:

    “Realize that you cannot credibly argue for your favored personal freedom while attacking someone who is exercising another very personal freedom.”

    These are very different positions.

    Btw, did Dr Phillips reply (I couldn’t find your comment),

    • junican Says:

      I read that article.

      He hasn’t responded, but he hasn’t deleted the comment. A ‘ping-back has appeared. What is a ping-back?

      My comment is on his latest post.

      • west2 Says:

        Ok got it, tnx.

        afik a pingback is a link back to your blog.

      • junican Says:

        I think that I understand ‘pingback’, at least as far as wordpress is concerned. I have a wordpress blog and so does Carl P. If I quote a link to CP’s blog, then, in response, a ‘pingback’ to my blog will appear.on CP’s Blog if I …..

        No, I still do not get it.

        Hang on. I think that I do. I provided a link on a post to CP’s wordpress blog. The ‘pingback’ which appeared on his blog was simply to inform him that someone on wordpress had linked to his blog.


  3. garyk30 Says:

    Tobacco Harm Reduction?

    Doll’s ‘Doctor Study’ showed that over 4 out of 5 people’s deaths will be from one of the diseases ’caused’ by smoking and it matters not if you smoke, have quit, or never-smoked.

    By definition, 50% of deaths will be pre-mature and it matters not if you smoke, have quit, or never smoked.

    In actuality, all deaths are pre-mature in that you could have lived longer if you did not die.

    we see that a person dying at the age of 80 will lose a possible 9.65 years of life.

    Unraveling the anti’s lies is rather like figuring out how magicians do their tricks.

    • junican Says:

      They use every advertising trick in the book, Gary. One of the main tricks is to use the looseness of the meaning of words. This looseness is great for our conversations because we can nuance meanings by other means. ASH ET AL, being staffed essentially by ‘advertising specialists’, know how to manipulate the meaning words like ‘harm’, ‘disease’, ‘children and young people’, ‘epidemic’, ‘evidence’ etc, to play on people’s emotions.
      I suspect that it will only end when they slip up and tread on some seriously influential toes.

    • beobrigitte Says:

      Gary, a couple of questions:
      1. At what age EXACTLY would I supposed to die if I was a non-smoker?

      2. At what age was my little brother (who was a non-smoker!) to die if he had not been killed in a road traffic accident?

      • garyk30 Says:

        They can not give an answer to either of those questions; nor, can they tell us just what diseases we should be dying from.

  4. garyk30 Says:

    Illusions from the healthists.

    Due to healthy living and modern medicine the white male life span has doubled over the last 100 years or so.


    we see that life expectancy at birth for white males has doubled since 1850.

    But, the life expectency for a 70 year old white male has only increased by about 3.5% over that same period of time.

    In 1850 the 70 year old white male had a 50% chance of living another 10.2 years.

    In 2000 the 70 year old white male had a 50% chance of living another 13 years.

    80.2 to 83 is a only a 3.5% increase.

    While there may be more old geezers around, they are not living much longer than was done 150 years ago.

    At least back then they could smoke, drink, and enjoy themselves as much as possible.

    • Junican Says:

      Again, we are into a ‘calculus’ sort of situation. There was a time, I suppose, when a whole second could be cut from the record for the 100 metres sprint. Now, even a tenth of a second is hard to achieve. Soon, the difference will be into hundredths of a second, at which point everyone will realise how stupid the whole idea of these records is.

      When will Government realise that the law of ‘diminishing returns’ applies to the cost of smoking cessation?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: