A Couple of Sad Stories in the Sun Newspaper

I have started to get the Sun newspaper on Saturdays. Don’t sneer. I used to get the Mirror, but I swapped when I found that the Sun has a much more extensive TV schedules section than the Mirror. Don’t sneer again.

A sad report appeared briefly on page 23. It says that Elena Baltacha ‘is battling with liver cancer’. She is the former NO.1 ladies British tennis champion. I feel sure that people will remember the surname at least. She is only 30. The Sun is one of these papers that demand that you pay a subscription and I refuse to do so, so I cannot quote from the article. Suffice to say that the report says that she was diagnosed with a serious liver complaint when she was 19 but she recovered and was able to continue with her tennis career. The report does not say if there is any connection between the two, but it seems likely that there is. Nor does the report give information about the seriousness of her condition. We can only wish her well.

On page 29, there is a much more extensive report about another young lady who is not famous at all. Her name is Kris Hallenga. She was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009 at the age of 23. It seems that she had noticed lumps a year earlier. The report says: “But at first, doctors failed to realise she had breast cancer simply because they thought that she was too young”. Her condition is now at stage 4, and the cancer has spread. She will not survive, but is campaigning to get women to check regularly. Again, we can only wish her well.

Someone called ‘Lorraine Kelly’ writes a column in the Sun. She is an out-and-out anti-tobacco Zealot. And yet she wrote today:

“EXPERTS? FAT CHANCE”

“This week we’ve been told that we need to cut down on our sugar, stop eating meat and that fat is actually good for you. This comes despite “experts” lecturing us for more than 50 years that a low-blubber diet ensures a long and healthy life. I for one am baffled, confused and fed up. So I have decided to eat whatever I blinking well like in reasonably sized portions, do a bit of walking, a Zumba class once a week and hope for the best”

========

It is a pity that the editors of these newspapers do not put two and two together. The evidence is plain before their eyes. On the same day, we have reports of two young women between 20 and 30, one of whom is most definitely as physically fit as one can imagine, being afflicted by cancer, and a columnist who is ‘baffled, confused and fed up’ by the contradictions and blatantly junk nature of what goes under the name of science these days.

Why does it not occur to these newspapers that second hand smoke ‘science’ is just as much junk as the ‘fat’ science? Why can they not see that cancer strikes at any age without apparent specific cause, or, in the case of Ms Baltacha, connected to some precondition? Do the editors not read their own newspapers?

In a way, these reports bring us back to the result of the McTear Case and the graph of deaths in the Doctors Study. In the McTear Case, tobacco control could not con the judge into accepting that they had ‘evidence’ that smoking causes lung cancer. The Doctors Study graph indicates only that only that ‘premature’ death is relative. I’ll print the graph again for new readers:

img002

It is true that the graph indicates that 20% of heavy smokers had died by the age of 60, but it is also true that 8% of non smokers had also died. At that age, 80% of heavy smokers had NOT died, even though they had been smoking for about 40 years at that point. We should also bear in mind that these smokers had been smoking un-tipped, full-strength, tar-heavy cigs all their lives. Also, these people had just been through six years of war. Also, smogs and air pollution were the order of the day. Inconvenient facts, like the urban/rural divide, were brushed aside.

What the Doctors Study did not explain was why most heavy smokers did NOT die prematurely as compared with other heavy smokers. Not does it explain why ALL the doctors started to die off at the same rate once they started to die (as a result of old age?). What should have happened, were it true that smoking kills, is that the lines on the graph should have diverged. That is, comparatively speaking, the lines should have fanned out, and not come closer together.

——

But I have commented upon that before – old hat, I suppose. Having said that, the Tobacco Control Industry is renowned for constantly repeating the same lies. Also, it is true that the implications of these studies are not always apparent at first sight.

========

I think that the resolution of contradictions in the ‘evidence’ will come in due course, but only if stricter scientific standards are applied. For example, if an epidemiological study shows that there are more deaths from SIDS among smoking parents than non smoking parents, then the actual physical connection between the smoking and the SIDS deaths must be demonstrated. In the past, the usefulness of epidemiology was to show possible causes. It was up to people on the ground to actually identify the reality, which might not be what was originally thought to be the cause. Accepting the results of epidemiology (aka ‘studies’), even multiple studies of the same type, is scientific mumbo-jumbo. That is, a contradiction in terms. ‘Scientific’, as a word, excludes ‘mumbo-jumbo’.

======

Politicians are in thrall to the Health Zealots. There can be no doubt about that. Amazingly, massive, and very expensive, mistakes have been made as a result, such as the waste of money on vaccines for swine flu. And yet, these errors seem to be of no consequence. Rarely are they mentioned. I suspect that the reason that they are rarely mentioned is that there is no political advantage to either side. All the main parties applauded the waste.

======

But, little by little, in various ways, it is  coming to be understood that the underlying ‘science’, which justifies smoking bans and such, is fictitious. It is sad that it seems to be the case that the last people to understand are politicians.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “A Couple of Sad Stories in the Sun Newspaper”

  1. beobrigitte Says:

    This actually made me laugh! Thanks!

    Someone called ‘Lorraine Kelly’ writes a column in the Sun. She is an out-and-out anti-tobacco Zealot. And yet she wrote today:

    “EXPERTS? FAT CHANCE”

    “This week we’ve been told that we need to cut down on our sugar, stop eating meat and that fat is actually good for you. This comes despite “experts” lecturing us for more than 50 years that a low-blubber diet ensures a long and healthy life. I for one am baffled, confused and fed up. So I have decided to eat whatever I blinking well like in reasonably sized portions, do a bit of walking, a Zumba class once a week and hope for the best”

    Ah, I see. Lorraine Kelly is “fed up” with “experts”…. Trust me, so am I. In actual fact, I no longer believe ANYTHING these “experts” tell me. Especially not when it comes to smoking!! The “war on vapers” makes these “experts” finally look ridiculous.

    • junican Says:

      I think that you are right, Beo. How else can you interpret her words? It would be great if these people would start questioning “experts” when they first pronounce and not after 50 years.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: