The Sense of Smell

There is so much going on, in the Tobacco Control Industry’s haste to get more and more bans, that even the Zealots themselves must be becoming confused. For years, they have managed to sing to the same hymn-sheet, but it is becoming apparent that some sections of the ‘movement’ are starting to become excluded, just as Dr Siegel and Prof Carl Phillips found themselves excommunicated. ASH is very close to being dispensed with. The reason is revealed by its very title – ‘action on SMOKING and health’. How can it change itself to ‘action on NICOTINE and health’? It cannot. Is it probable that a new organisation will be formed which refers to nicotine rather than smoking? I suppose that it is possible. But, these days, with the internet, it hardly seems necessary to have a ‘movement’. All that is needed is a ‘spokesperson’ whose job is to release press releases. ‘Smoke’ has been replaced by ‘nicotine’ as the devil, and so ‘action of smoking and health’ is so yesterday. In Australia, ASH simply disbanded, but I doubt that that will be the case in the UK. It will fade away slowly.

What a stink!!

——–

The human sense of smell is not nearly as acute as that of dogs or cats. Nevertheless, it does act as a warning symbol. In fact, one of its chief purposes, evolutionarily, is to act as a warning. Thus, when we walk into a kitchen where someone has been cooking, even though it may be hours ago, we ‘pick up’ the smell of the cooking. It has been observed, however, that the ‘sensors’ in our conks readily ‘fill up’ so that, after a few minutes, we no longer notice the smell. An individual might say that the smell has ‘gone away’. He might think that the aroma no longer exists. But, should another individual walk into that room, that individual will say, “What’s that smell?” The original person, still surrounded by the aroma, might well then say, “What smell?”

Is it true that the Health Dept once emitted a TV advert which said: “If you can smell it, it is harming you”? Personally, I don’t remember such an advert. If such an advert existed, then it ought not to have. The reason is that such an advert would be very unscientific. Your conk can detect minute quantities, in the first instance, before it ‘forgets’ those aromas. But the Health Dept is not averse to creating such ads as we have seen regarding tumours growing on cigs, and dirty blood.

The ‘stink’ gets more and more oppressive. There is something sickly sweet about the stink. The blather of the Welsh ‘Minister for Health’ dinosaur about ecigs is akin to the stink of rotting flesh. Few people have experience the stink of rotting flesh, but I have. It is so sweet that it makes you gag. It is hard to describe. But there are other aromas in there – aromas akin to perfume.

——–

You might well ask: “What has this to do with smoking bans and ecig bans and EU complicity?”

It is because our sense of smell is so acute, when it first experiences a smell, that it is in no way, in itself, an indication of harm. This physical fact is also replicated by the physical fact that that SHS cannot possible be other than ‘a nuisance’ to those who might regard it as such. SHS has a smell, but the smell is harmless. It is just a smell.

=======

I think that, if we allow them to, our brains are perfectly capable of recognising ‘stinks’ intuitively, just as our conks can. There are many ‘stinks’. For example, it is obvious that anyone in a group who dies before the last survivor in that group, has died ‘prematurely’. Also, it is obvious that the last survivor will die ‘post-maturely’. There is no such word, but there ought to be. If a person dies ‘prematurely’ because he dies before the average age at death, then anyone who dies after that age MUST die ‘post-maturely’. But that idea introduces the idea that every person who dies after the first person in a group, dies ‘post-maturely’.

In any case, as we have observed, another interpretation is that anyone who dies before the last survivor in a group, by definition, MUST have died ‘prematurely’.

There again, the idea of ‘prematurity’ relies upon Doll’s Doctors Study and, specifically, upon his politicisation of the ‘facts’ in the last two reports – the 40 year report and the 50 year report. By then, of course, as we know, the WHO had been taken over by Tobacco Prohibitionists, reflecting the situation in the early 1900s. PROHIBITION is the aim. Be in no doubt. The Zealots see PROHIBITION as heavenly, angelic, saintly. But there is a difference.

Hitler (meaning him and all his fascist dependants)  saw anti-tobacco as a means to  create the superior Arian Race.  No doubt inferior races would be ENCOURAGED to continue smoking to ensure that they stayed inferior.

=======

We smokers, as far as I can tell, have tried our best to support our cousins who prefer to vape. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to separate them from smokers. Have we common cause? Well, NO! Not until vapers stop pretending that they have received miracle cures from ‘tobacco related diseases’. Such ‘cures’ cannot possibly exist. If you have been smoking for twenty years, and have suffered bodily damage thereby,  a few months or a couple of years of vaping cannot repair that damage. It is not physically possible – according to Doll and the Zealots.

According to Doll, Peto et al, charlatans to a man, if you smoke from the age of 20 until the age of 40, or thereabouts, then you MAY peg out tomorrow from ‘smoking related diseases’ when you reach the age of 41, .- or 42, – or 43. OR, you may stop smoking. In that case, you may “peg out tomorrow from ‘smoking related diseases’ when you reach the age of 41, .- or 42, – or 43 or not”. BUT, these magical effects only occur as time goes by.

If two smokers quit, after 20 years of smoking, the statistical probabilities are that one MAY survive to old age. But, for that to be true statistically, the other smoker must die right away.

=====

I must apologise for the discontinuity of tonight’s post. I am slightly ashamed. It is somewhat coloured by the fact that my lawn-mower developed a fault. I could easily describe the fault as ‘tobacco related’,  if I wished to. It would be fun to shout at the manufacturer of the mower because of the mower’s ‘tobacco related’ faults.

But is that not symptomatic of tobacco control’s claims that all ‘faults’ in the human body are ‘tobacco related’?

=====

The fools in tobacco control have had temporary success.

How are these fools to be exposed and punished? How are they to be ridiculed and put into the stocks?

It cannot and will not happen.

But WE, when the nonsense of tobacco control is revealed as a sham, can chase up the Zealots such as Arnott, and Zammet. We must chase them from here to hell. They are torturers. That is the objective of Arnott and co – to torture smokers. They cannot hide behind ‘public health’. They are not part of ‘public health’. They are equivalent to the thugs who rounded up Jews to be taken to the gas chambers. That is what ASH ET AL are.

 

 

 

Advertisements

10 Responses to “The Sense of Smell”

  1. Dr. Sok Says:

    and they will go to hell

  2. Rose Says:

    ‘If you can smell it, it could be killing you!

    ASH’s Smoking in Condos and Apartments
    Information
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/u/k/l/ukl73c00/Sukl73c00.pdf

    American ASH

    • garyk30 Says:

      Welllll, there is very little ‘smell’ to salt; but, too much will kill you.

      Just because something ‘could’ kill you gives no input as to whether it ‘will’ kill you.

    • Junican Says:

      That’s probably where I read it, Rose.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    Actually, very few people live to a very old age.

    In America only about 1/5,700 have done it.

    About 55,000 out of 317 million.

  4. garyk30 Says:

    Ex-smokers lung cancers are always blamed on their having smoked.

    That is how we get the claim that 90% of lung cancer deaths are ’caused’ by smoking.

    Now, if a person had the same risk for lung cancer as a never-smoker, that person’s lung cancer could not be blamed on smoking.

    Here is one reason given for quitting.

    http://www.blisstree.com/2010/06/07/mental-health-well-being/what-happens-to-your-body-if-you-stop-smoking-right-now/

    In 10 years your risk of lung cancer will have returned to that of a non-smoker.

    • garyk30 Says:

      That leads to this:

      1. 45% of the total lung cancer happened to ex’s that have the same risk for lung cancer as never-smokers.

      2.There is a 52% probability that a smoker’s lung cancer was caused by factors other than smoking.

      http://lungcancer.about.com/b/2011/03/02/former-smokers-at-risk-for-lung-cancer-decades-later.htm

      I’m often surprised by the response I get when I mention that the majority of people who develop lung cancer now are non-smokers. “What? You’ve gotta be kidding! Where did you hear that?”

      Yet it’s true. Lung Cancer occurs more often in people who’ve already kicked the habit.

      A new study gives us numbers to talk about. Researchers looked at over 600 people who were referred for lung cancer surgery and who were asked the question; “Did you smoke, and if so, when did you quit?”

      Of these patients 77% had a history of smoking in the past, but only 11% were current smokers.

      The “average” patient had quit smoking 18 years before the diagnosis. The former smokers were broken down further by how long they had been “smoking abstinent”:

      14% had been smoke free for less than a year
      27% were smoke free for 1 to 10 years
      21% were smoke free for 10 to 20 years
      16% were smoke free for 20 to 30 years
      11% were smoke free for 30 to 40 years
      10% were smoke free for 40 to 50 years
      The conclusion was that the majority of patients in this group had been smoke free for more than a decade prior to their diagnosis of lung cancer. (58%- GK)

      58% of 77% = 45% of the total LC’s.

      77% = x-smokers

      11% = current smokers

      12% = never-smokers

      Current smokers = 11% of lung cancers
      Ex-smokers = 77% of lung cancers
      Never-smokers = 12% of lung cancers

      Lung cancer deaths(lcd) = 160,000

      Current smokers(11%) = 17,600/46 million smokers

      Ex-smokers(77%) =123,200 /48 million ex-smokers

      Never-smokers(12%) = 19,200/136 million never-smokers

      58% of the ex-smokers have a risk of lung cancer that is the same as never-smokers.

      That creates two groups:
      smokers= current smokers + ex-smokers with a similar lc risk= 46 million plus 20 million = 66 million.
      lcd’s are 17,600 + 51,744 = 69,344 lcd’s

      non-smokers are 136 million plus the 58% of ex-smokers that have the same risk (28 million) = 164 million
      lcd’s are 19,200 + 71,456 = 90,656

      That gives these numbers:

      smokers = 69,344 lcd/66 million
      LCD Rate = 10.5/10,000

      non-smokers = 90,656 lcd/164 million
      LCD Rate = 5.5/10,000

      5.5 is 52% of 10.5

      There is a 52% probability a smoker’s lung cancer was caused by factors other than smoking.

  5. Junican Says:

    One of the things that I dislike about epidemiology is that it takes a bunch of random incidents and plots them on graphs and then draws specific conclusions. If we take Doll’s Doctors Study, for example. When the reports of deaths started to come through, they deaths must have been very random. Some doctors would be old and a few would be youngish. If you were plotting the deaths on a huge chart, there would be random dots appearing all over the place, mostly at he higher age end. You could have some sort of colour coding! Red for heavy smoker, blue for moderate, yellow for light and green for non smoker. Wait a minute! If you used digits to represent the cause of death, you could colour code the digits! EG. A red number 1 indicates ‘LC, heavy smoker, aged X’.

    Who needs computers?

    Seriously, what I am trying to say is that what seems to be a huge number (34,000 male doctors) gets smaller and smaller as you break it down into categories. EG. What actual number of doctors was between 35 and 39 at the start, moderate smokers, died from some form of cancer at age 67, gave up smoking aged 56? Probably a small number. Then, when you look a them individually, where did they live and practice? How much did they drink? How fat were they? How much exercise did they take? What was their family heath history? In each case, there might well be many possible influences other than smoking.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: