The New McTear Case Blog

I have finally finished correcting the errors which arose when I copied my original post about the above to a new blog. Had I not made the corrections, then the whole text would have been just a huge slab. No one would have ever even been tempted to read it.

The new blog can be found here, and I would be pleased if people would just check it out for visibility:

http://junican.wordpress.com/

As I said earlier, the new blog and its subject exist only so that I can refer/link to it without going through the Bolton Smokers Club. The reason for that it that I have many times had sneering remarks about ‘smoking club equals big tobacco’. Not that I am in the least bit ashamed – just that I want the McTear Case to stand out on its own merits without ‘ulterior motives’ being assumed. The case will still figure on the BSC site as it does now.

We PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco) have little to refute the ‘science’ of the Medical Establishment (aka ASH, BMA, CRUK, etc). The McTear Case refutes that ‘science’, and shows it to be ‘anti-science’. The real science was in the experiments which attempted to induce lung cancer in dogs, mice, rats, hamster, etc. Those experiments failed. The anti-science lies in the epidemiological studies, but, to be fair, if these studies are accepted for what they truly are – indicators of possible causations – then they have a really valuable part to play. The problem arises when these studies are accepted as valid ‘proof’ of causation in themselves.

For example, it was thought for a long time that malaria was caused by ‘miasmas’ issuing from swamps and such. An epidemiological study would indeed show that almost all persons who contracted malaria lived near swamps, while those people who did not live near swamps rarely contracted malaria.

But a very important consideration is this: many such epidemiological studies could be repeated, and they would all come out with the same result! Thus, on the face of it, the first study to find that living near a swamp was the cause of malaria would have been replicated according to  the ‘scientific method’. A ‘meta-study’ of all the studies thus conducted would undoubtedly find that, throughout Africa, the ‘miasma’ (bad air) from swamps is what causes the disease of malaria.

It took a long time for it to be discovered that it was parasites injected into the bloodstream when a mosquito bit a person that produced the malaria, and that the swamps figured because they were ideal places for mosquitoes to breed and flourish.

=======

The McTear Case is solid evidence that the Medical Establishment has no physical (scientific) evidence at all that smoking causes lung cancer. It can be quoted with conviction. You can say it. You can say, “In the McTear Case in the Scottish Supreme Court, no scientific or medical evidence was produced which showed that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer”. You can say it because it is true! Further, you can repeat it again and again and again, because it always remains true.

What is most likely to happen, sometime in the future? It might well be that, similar to living near a swamp as regards malaria, tobacco smoke has some relevance, and that it might render a person who is already susceptible to lung cancer via some sort of virus or genetics, even more likely to suffer the cell malignancy and loss of immune system functionality than would otherwise be the case, especially when the body ages. If such evidence appeared, and was scientific in its nature, then we could accept it. What we cannot accept, at this time, is the blanket assertions which the McTear Case has positively shown to be unsubstantiated.

======

A final thought. I wonder if people who frequent sites like ‘Mumsnet’ realise that, when they call for more ‘protection’ for children by the State, what the will get is more ‘direction’, with which they have to comply? Also, do the drones who have accepted ‘global warming’ and want government action, realise that they will be compelled to NOT act? That is, NOT drive their cars; NOT use their central heating; NOT fly to sunny climes for their hols? OH …. That is, unless they are members of the BETTER SORT elite.

 

 

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “The New McTear Case Blog”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Thank you for a great resource Junican! And your swamp example is beautiful… I’ll have to save that one for re-use!

    🙂
    MJM

  2. lysistratatheoriginal Says:

    It looks very clear and legible.Thanks for all your work on this.

  3. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    Thanks Cousin Im chaging my link right now to this great piece you did! Off to the trenches…………….Banzai!

  4. Junican Says:

    I’m glad that it has worked out. We have to think about how people all over the world react when presented with ‘evidence’. The charlatans can destroy your genuine evidence at a stroke by simply saying, “Oh! A smoking site! Big Tobacco, Big Tobacco, …..” At least now, the evidence that the Medical Establishment were unable to convince the Judge that smoking even probably produces lung cancer can be seen without labels.

  5. nisakiman Says:

    Excellent job, Junican.

    I for one am very glad that you have separated your most erudite summary of the McTear case from your blog, as I’ve been a tad reluctant to link to it due to the title of this blog.

    Not that I personally have a problem with BSC as a title, but for the very reasons that you yourself have outlined. That it is a stand-alone link now will make it much more useful.

    I’m sure I speak for all of us who seek to get the facts out there that your efforts are much appreciated. It was a daunting task not lightly undertaken. Yes, excellent job.

    • Junican Says:

      Thanks, nisak.
      I’ve already used the new link about a dozen times today. It is very easy to introduce it, especially that the Zealots are now extending the ‘unproven’ claptrap far beyond even its reasonably possible application. “Nicotine from ecigs can settle on furniture and will addict anyone who touches the furniture” Anyone who reads that ought to question the sanity of the speaker. They ought also to question previous utterances of the speaker.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: