Using the New McTear Case Blog

I took the opportunity tonight to use the new blog for the first time. It was on Siegel’s blog. The subject lent itself to quoting the McTear Case. The subject was about Archdeacon Sammet of the Tobacco Control Church claiming that the effluent from ecigs, the vapour, can coat chairs with nicotine, which is very dangerous because nicotine can be absorbed by the skin of anyone touching said chairs. It pleased me to be able to say that the only reason that Sammet could get away with such nonsense is because ALL OF TOBACCO CONTROL has been built upon the uncorroborated findings of statistical mathematics, which is what epidemiological studies are. That is, these studies can only produce correlations. Even if you have twenty studies which point to the same ’cause’, they are no more than repetitions of the same investigation. Only if physical evidence is produced to support the conjectures of epidemiology, can cause and effect be demonstrated. Merely repeating the same study does no more than repeat the same conjecture. The reality has been that no actual physical studies have reproduced the theory.

There was an interesting factoid in the McTear Case. Doll himself said this (I paraphrase):

‘If the epidemiology suggests that a certain activity or substance is having a certain effect, then, if the removal of the activity or substance results in the removal of the effect, it ‘proves’ that the activity or substance caused the effect’

That may well be true most of the time, but not necessarily. For example, if people believed that the ‘miasma’ from swamps caused malaria, then the draining of swamps might well reduce the incidence of malaria. The draining of the swamp would not therefore prove that malaria is caused by the miasma from the swamp. After all, we now know that parasites injected by the bite of a mosquito cause malaria, and it just so happens that swamps are ideal places for mosquitoes to breed.

I mention this example again because it is a perfect example of multiple studies all showing the same cause and effect, and all the effects being terminated by removal of the cause, WHICH IS THE WRONG CAUSE! You could say that mosquitoes are not stupid – those that survive the drainage of the swamps will move to other stagnant waters.

Doll’s statement is clearly faulty, but there is a further consequence. He implies that, if everyone could be FORCED to stop smoking, then the adverse ‘health effects’ of smoking could be proven. It is an interesting logical consequence, as stated by Doll, that ‘adverse health effects of smoking’ cannot be proven in any other way!

=======

I posted this at Siegel’s place (about Sammet claiming that ecigs leave dangerous residues):

These sort of remarks are certain to happen because, ever since Doll’s Doctors Study (and probably before), actual scientific evidence is no longer required in matters of public health. ‘Statistical mathematics’ (aka ‘epidemiology’) is enough.

In 2005, Judge Nimmo Smith, in the Scottish Supreme Court, gave his judgement in the McTear V Imperial Tobacco Case. McTear had claimed that smoking tobacco provided by Imperial Tob caused his lung cancer. The first thing that McTear needed to do was to provided evidence sufficient to convince the Judge that smoking probably caused lung cancer (in general). The might of the Medical Establishment could not provide such evidence.

Read my summary of the case – it will open your eyes:

http://junican.wordpress.com/

The Medical Establishment got away with pseudo-science right from the beginning. Why should these people not continue to do so, no matter how silly their claims may be?

=======

The important point is that you can go from the hysterical claims of the high priests of tobacco control, and reduce them to witch doctors. And you can project that back.

——–

What has been important to me has been that I have found a ‘form of words’ which more clearly exploits the difference between ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘on the balance probabilities’. It has been said that 20% of the population would not know what section of the A to Z phone book to search,  in order to find a ‘plumber’. The ‘form of words’ is not cheating in the same way that the Charlatans cheat. The ‘form of words’ merely clarifies the ‘burden of proof’. Rather than saying, ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘on the balance of probabilities’, one can say ‘definitely’ and ‘probably’. Thus, one can say that all that McTear needed to do was to provide evidence, sufficient to convince the Judge, that smoking PROBABLY causes lung cancer.

In the event of the ‘trial’, the whole Medical Establishment could not provide convincing evidence that smoking PROBABLY was a cause of lung cancer.

Note the conversion of the phrase  ‘on the balance of probabilities’ to the more understandable word ‘PROBABLY’.

The Medical Establishment could not provide evidence that smoking PROBABLY caused lung cancer, never mind DEFINITELY caused lung cancer.

And yet the Medical Establishment has continued, year after year after year, despite the McTear Case, to FAIL to produce evidence other than ‘miasmas’. In fact, the ‘miasma’ reliance gets worse and worse. As we have seen, the esteemed and glorious expert, Zammet, has prophesied that disgusting, filthy, stinking ecig excreta will coat every surface and will kill babies by the million.

Thus sayeth the High Priest.

======

ASH (aka the Medical Establishment) swept the McTear Case away by claiming that “it was a shame that Mrs McTear was disappointed”. ASH had nothing to say about the FACTS of the case. I wonder what the response would be if Cameron/Clegg/Milliband was asked about his opinion of ‘The McTear Case’? I shudder.

======

So let us bear in mind that the Zealots and Charlatans of the Medical Establishment have promoted the dangers of SHS as miasmas from swamps. Therefore, SMOKERS are the swamps – disgusting, filthy, stinking swamps. That is what smokers are.

Jesus! They cannot even show that smoking probably injuries smokers!

=====

May I suggest to anyone thinking of quoting the McTear Case to keep it simple. The McTear Case showed that, not only could the Medical Establishment not prove that smoking causes lung cancer, but that the Medical Establishment could not even provide convincing evidence that smoking PROBABLY causes lung cancer.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Using the New McTear Case Blog”

  1. beobrigitte Says:

    The subject was about Archdeacon Sammet of the Tobacco Control Church claiming that the effluent from ecigs, the vapour, can coat chairs with nicotine, which is very dangerous because nicotine can be absorbed by the skin of anyone touching said chairs. It pleased me to be able to say that the only reason that Sammet could get away with such nonsense is because ALL OF TOBACCO CONTROL has been built upon the uncorroborated findings of statistical mathematics,

    Actually, I thought it was an April fools thing. But then, even if it isn’t it is highly amusing to watch the anti-smokers hammering a battery of nails into their own coffin!!

    Let’s face it, if chairs are “contaminated” by “passive vape” – imagine the state of MONEY which passes through smokers’/vapers’ hands!!!
    For the “serious” health&safety risk the anti-smokers encounter, all of the tax payers’ monies provided to them will be witheld with immediate effect.

    • Junican Says:

      The likes of Zammet are so over-confident that they have everything sewn up that they will be amazed and shocked when the whole edifice, that they have built upon sand, crumbles under the stress of their own stupid allegations.
      I hope that we live to see the day! NO! I am DETERMINED to live to see the day! Clearly, according to the evidence, it would be STUPID for me to stop smoking, since ex-smokers peg out more rapidly than current smokers.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: