Starting a New Blog for the McTear Case

On WordPress, I can start a new blog under the same authorship as this one, so I have done so. The new blog is called “The McTear Versus Imperial Tobacco Company Case (2005)”. It is specifically dedicated to that Court Case and has no other purpose than that I can reference/link to it whenever I wish to, without involving the Bolton Smokers Club. The reason for that is that, whenever I have referred to the Court Case via the BSC, there are often sneering remarks about tobacco company shills and stuff. I do not mind that in itself, but I do not want distractions from the message that I am trying to send, which is that the ‘Medical Establishment’, when given the perfect opportunity, could not provide evidence sufficient for a Judge to agree that smoking could cause lung cancer, even when the proof required was only ‘on the balance of probabilities’. By creating this ‘stand-alone’ blog, I can draw people’s attention to the case, and my summary of it, directly.

I have been thinking about doing this for some time. What has finally made me go ahead has been the discussion at Frank Davis’s place about how we should argue our case against smoking bans.  Some people have said that we should ignore the lies about primary smoking and go for SHS only, while others have suggested that we should hit the zealots and charlatans head on by denying smoking danger. My personal gut feeling is that, at the moment, it would be very, very difficult to convince anyone that smoking is not dangerous. I think that the best we can do right now is simply cast doubts upon it.

The good thing about the McTear Case is that it is solid evidence that the Medical Establishment could not provide good enough evidence to convince a Judge that smoking causes lung cancer. They had the opportunity and produced their big guns as experts, but failed, and failed convincingly. That failure is quotable and is solid.

Creating the new blog was easy enough, but copying my summary of the case was a devil! For some reason that I do not understand, copying the PDF text of the summary was a real problem. Some bits of the text copied and some bits would not. After thrutching about for a couple of hours, I finally remembered that I had published the summary, in the first instance, as a simple post. When I searched for and found the original post, copying it was a doddle. But there is still quite a lot to do before it can be published.

We must stick to our guns and remember that the ‘evidence’ for smoking causing lung cancer is only epidemiological. It shows correlation and not causation. As GaryK has pointed out again and again, non-smokers die from ‘smoking related diseases’ just as much as smokers. The only difference is that smokers tend to suffer from these diseases earlier than non-smokers. If non-smokers suffer from these diseases, what ’causes’ them in non-smokers?

You will get no answers from the Medical Establishment since it acts like a monopoly of the worst kind. It has deliberately set out to silence any form of competition, and has done so blatantly by disbarring any ‘evidence’ which might be produced by its only potential competitor with funds to compete – the tobacco industry. (I wonder what the BMJ would do if the tobacco industry funded research into something totally unconnected to tobacco, say, sickle cell anaemia, and demanded that it be published under threat of legal action?)

 

Enough for tonight. The clock has gone forward and  I think that I am suffering from a ‘tobacco related disease’ – aka ‘tiredness’. Need to get up at a reasonable new hour as well.

======

Oh …. Just a little amusing aside.

How warm is ‘warm’? How cool is ‘cool’? I decided to do a little experiment just to amuse myself. I took a glass bowl and put some ‘warm’ water in it. I then put my little thermometer into the water. The ‘warmth’ was 32ºC. To the touch, fingers in bowl, the warmth was quite warm. After half an hour or so, I checked again. The temp had fallen to 26ºC. The water still felt ‘warm’, but only a little so. Another quarter of an hour later, I check again. Now the temp was 22ºC, but this time the water felt cool. Now I know that my fingers might have warmed up or cooled down between the testings, but even so I thought that it was odd that so much difference in ‘feel’ could occur over a spread of only 4ºC. Readers will have guessed that these meanderings are connected to caring for baccy seedlings.

Subjective feelings are equivalent to epidemiological studies. Thermometer readings are science.

 

 

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Starting a New Blog for the McTear Case”

  1. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    Go get em Cousin its time to rip their foundation out from under them………

  2. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    Subjective feelings are equivalent to epidemiological studies. Thermometer readings are science.

    Pretty sad when your science has to be a belief system the same as a religion as one must believe for it to be real.

    • Junican Says:

      If you are a smoker, and you get LC, it must be because you have sinned.

  3. smokingscot Says:

    O/T

    A while back you mentioned some MP’s were trying to get an amendment to allow smoking in clubs.

    Anything happen?

    • Junican Says:

      Ah Yes. The commenter who mentioned it told me that the proposal had been withdrawn!

  4. beobrigitte Says:

    Everything points to prospective governments to get rid of one ugly thing: tobacco control.

    This step most certainly will aid the recovery of stable government finances. Any stable income counteracts implosion.

    • Junican Says:

      I fear that only a scandal of some sort will precipitate such a thing. The scandal might take the form of questions being asked in the House of Commons about the Big Lotto funding ASH, and about CRUK funding ASH. So far, they have got away with it. Questions ought also to be asked about the attempt of the Medical Establishment to create a monopoly of information and investigation.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: