The Most Harmless Toxin the World has Ever Known

One of my favourite blogs is that of Dr Siegel. The blog is here:

Dr Siegel really, really believes that tobacco smoking causes death and destruction on a massive scale. In fact, he was a really, really big noise in tobacco control before it became ‘the tobacco control industry’. I think that it was he who was very instrumental in bringing about the Master Settlement (the arrangement that tobacco companies came to with States in the USA, in which tobacco companies agreed to put 50 cents on the price of a pack of fags and hand the proceeds of the millions of 50 cents to States, pro-rata, depending upon sales of fags in that State. In return, tobacco companies gained immunity from State legal actions). Or it may have been something else.

Anyway, something went wrong, and Dr Siegel was excommunicated. Since then, he has tried valiantly to point out how charlatans have taken over the tobacco control industry for their own financial advantage, including Big Pharma. He doesn’t put it that way, of course. But it is implied because there must be some reason that the charlatans seem intent upon destroying the e-cig industry, when it is as plain as the nose on your face that e-cigs present no danger at all to speak of. Only yesterday, our friend, Leg Iron (see sidebar), drew attention to an article in the Mail on Line about an exploding e-cig battery. Oh, the horror! Never mind the fact that the battery was re-charging using the wrong charger. But what is important to note for the ignorant masses is that a battery can only explode while it is being charged! It cannot explode when one has it in one’s mouth and is sucking upon it, (unless you are sucking upon it while the battery is charging, which would be very difficult since the battery has to be removed from the e-cig in order to charge it). That cannot happen. That also applies to mobile phones, etc.

But what is interesting about Dr Siegel’s blog (apart from itself) is that there is a commenter who calls himself “FXR”. Again and again, FXR has drawn attention to explicit claims from tobacco control that smoking has no effect for thirty years. Has anyone ever heard of a poison which takes thirty years to work? It must be the most effete poison that has ever existed!

But wait! The thirty years applies only to a tiny proportion of those who are self-administering the poison! The vast majority will reach the end of their lives at the appropriate age, give or take a year or two, regardless of self-administering the poison. What’s more, those who self-administer and who live in rural abodes, will be less affected by the poison than those who live in cities! Further, people who live at the top of high-rise buildings will also be less affected by the poison than those people who live on the ground floors! Indeed, this is a curious poison.

Further, attempts in laboratories to poison animals like hamsters, rats, dogs, have failed miserably. But no one knows that since the fact that the poison does not work on these animals is NOT NEWS. Only what actually happens, like exploding batteries, is NEWS. Batteries which do not explode are not NEWS.


One might reasonably ask why is is that the best brains in the country, our Members of Parliament, are not conversant with the curious fact of the inefficacy of trying to poison your husband/wife by introducing them to smoking tobacco. For some reason that I cannot understand, they seem to believe that the poison works for anyone unrelated. In fact, they seems to believe that it works, in mysterious ways, at a distance and through walls!, no matter how weak and effete it may be.

To make things worse, the best brains in the country, our Members of Parliament, believe that the colourful packaging of these poisons, which don’t work for thirty years, cause ‘kids’ to spend £8 or so to buy the effete poisons in packs of 20 units of poison. And yet, the best brains in the country, our Members of Parliament, allow the sale of poisons which work IMMEDIATELY without describing them as ‘medicinal products’. I speak of toilet cleaning substances. These substance are obviously medicines since they are designed to protect ‘public health’. It is odd that these substances are not restricted to 10 millilitre containers, with drip-proof spouts and un-open-able seals.


The inverted  pyramid is pretty firm at the moment because there are monopolistic guards around the base. It is very odd that people like Dr Siegel are continuing to act as guards, even though they are being slapped and whipped at regular intervals. What people like Dr Siegel should do is walk away. It is not enough to defend e-cigs. They must examine their consciences and admit that the thirty-year-plus delay in the effect of the poison from tobacco smoking is akin to being struck by lightning or dying from blood poisoning as a result of scratching your skin on a rose-bush thorn.


I have deliberately used the phrase “the best brains in the country” to describe our members of parliament. Do readers believe that they are? If not, why not?

I was tempted to finish this post at that point, but the question is far too important. Why are our MPs NOT the best brains in the country? Why are so many of them juvenile ex-university ‘researchers’ and such? There must be a reason for the ‘intellectual deficit’, as illustrated by the comment of the Labour Shadow Public Health Minister, Luciana Berger, that “THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT PLAIN PACKAGING WORKS”, despite the fact that Chantler was ephemeral about the subject?

There is something terribly wrong with the source of our ‘best brains in the country’ MPs. There is no doubt, in my mind, that people who stand as MPs must be intellectually vigorous, but ‘earthy’. What we do not want is MPs who believe that the most important thing of all is to eradicate a poison which no effect for decades, if at all.


11 Responses to “The Most Harmless Toxin the World has Ever Known”

  1. Rose Says:

    If a plant wants to kill you it can do it within hours, not thirty years.

    Apropos of nothing.


    Cannabis smoker hit with fine after passing police officer while stinking of drug

    Police use ‘nose telescope’ for cannabis odour mapping
    14 Nov 2013

    “Police in Denver are using a nose telescope to tackle odours from the recreational use of marijuana.

    As more cities in America legalise the drug, attention has switched to the pungent smell that wafts from the joint itself.”

    Ever wonder if some of the devotees of Tobacco Control might really be resentful ex-marijuana users finally getting their revenge on the legal smokers?

    Vaporizing pot pens used to inhale hash, cannabis oil without the detectable smell of marijuana
    Without odor, pens are hard for police to spot
    March 24 2014

    “”Obviously it’s less offensive to people, but it is still an offense, or against the ordinance of the City and County of Denver to consume it in public,” explained Denver Police Spokesman, Sonny Jackson.

    Known as “vape pens,” the devices are similar to an e-cigarette but instead of nicotine, users inhale cannabis or hash oil. Denver Police aren’t actively seeking out pot violators, but said they have spotted and cited vape pen users for consuming marijuana in public. The violation is a civil penalty that comes with a fine.”
    http: //

    Another problem for the outraged, law-abiding, vapers to deal with.

    • Junican Says:

      The Zealots are undermining the ‘moral high ground’ that vapers are standing upon by moving the ‘argument’ from smoke to nicotine. They have done so with no qualms whatsoever. They are clearly charlatans, in the pay (literally) of Big Pharm (and Big T?).
      In this case, there is nothing that we can do to help them. other than to point it out. Vapers have only one choice, which is to rebel.

      • beobrigitte Says:

        Rose, as always, GOOD POINT.

        If a plant wants to kill you it can do it within hours, not thirty years.

        It would be pretty pointless for the plant to wait 30 years.

        Junican, indeed, the zealots all of a sudden moved from “PASSIVE SMOKING” to nicotine.

        The vapers need to repeat this question over and over again:
        Wasn’t the smoking ban lobbied because “passive smoking harms” others around us?

      • beobrigitte Says:

        Also: to
        The Zealots are undermining the ‘moral high ground’ that vapers are standing upon by moving the ‘argument’ from smoke to nicotine. They have done so with no qualms whatsoever. They are clearly charlatans, in the pay (literally) of Big Pharm (and Big T?).

        I am not so sure about ‘BigT’
        My research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.

        To me it would make sense if BigT manufactures also e-cigs.

      • Junican Says:

        It really is awfully difficult for vapers to fight back. As with smokers, they have no voice. The Medical Establishment (aka ‘public health’) have acquired a monopoly on information. Vapers have no choice but to shout and shout, as loud as the possibly can, “WE HAVE STOPPED INHALING TOBACCO SMOKE!!!” If they do that, then they can retain the ‘high moral ground’. Further, because their whispers are drowned out by the megaphones of tobacco control, they will have to engage in civil disobedience and shout about it. The whole vaping industry will have to go underground.

  2. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    The ranking goes for all cancer deaths/mortality:

    Per 100,000 population CDC NUMBERS/ smoking rates from tobacco free kids

    Kentucky at 207 Adults in Kentucky who smoke* 29.0% (971,000)

    Miss. 200 Adults in Mississippi who smoke* 26.0% (579,300)

    West Virginia 196 Adults in West Virginia who smoke* 28.6% (420,500)

    Louisianna 196 Adults in Louisiana who smoke* 25.7% (888,300)

    Arkansas 193 Adults in Arkansas who smoke* 27.0% (601,400)

    Alabama 190 Adults in Alabama who smoke* 24.3% (893,100)

    Indiana 187 Adults in Indiana who smoke* 25.6% (1,259,300)

    Maine 186 Adults in Maine who smoke* 22.8% (241,400)

    Missouri 184 Adults in Missouri who smoke* 25.0% (1,149,600)

    Delaware 184 Adults in Delaware who smoke* 21.8% (153,100)

    South Carolina 182 Adults in South Carolina who smoke* 23.1% (831,200)

    As we can see kentucky has the Highest rate but when we look at the map of kentucky cancer it shows us that its the Coal Mining Mountain region that sets Kentuckys state level Higher than all the rest. When we look at the local county levels they are pretty much in line with the rest of the country. Louisville reports roughly 750 cancer cases in 2010 by the chart yet no mention of out of state cases diagnosed there by the local 5 hospitals and cancer treatment done there by far attracting a higher base rate. Possibly inflating the kentucky numbers for louisville itself.

    But even without removing the coal mining regions the rate trends precisely with other states……….

    The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce is trying to make a case of smoking causing the highest rates of cancer deaths in the nation here. Yet we see a trend with the other high states with even lower smoking rates. It is indeed a matter of pumping propaganda to get the legislature to go for a statewide ban. While they tell the truth its a mixed message without telling the full story which shows problem that isnt any different than other states listed.


    Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table *†‡

    Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

    Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

    AGE it seems is the deciding factor………. Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

    America average age of death is 78.5 years and that’s the average without all the Propaganda in it…………..

    My Granda dad who smoked all his life born in 1900 lived to 89! He smoked Lucky Strikes non-filter 3 packs a day!

    My great grand mother born in 1888 smoked and chewed her whole life living to 96! She lived thru prohibition and tobacco prohibition making a lot of money breaking the laws on alcohol and tobacco. It was just last week my great aunt now 98 told me great grand ma and her Husband a Dough Boy ran a Still underneath the bridge on the OHIO river between Henderson Kentucky and Evansville Indiana back in the 1920s……….She had 2 speakeasies 1 in Booneville Indiana and 1 in Henderson itself………..

    My families made whiskey and grown tobacco for generations and as far back even before the US became the US!

    My great aunt knows I fight the Bloody Bastards every day and she said its in the Family Blood to fight PROHIBITION!

    I just smiled………….

  3. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”


    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  4. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    BBC comment boards show public health has no credibility

    Share on facebook

    Share on twitter

    Share on email

    Share on print

    More Sharing Services


    Monday April 7, 2014

    Chris Oakley explains why public health is no longer fooling anyone other than the political elite and the odd “journalist”

    For some time now I have been wondering how ideas such as plain packaging cigarettes become law despite foreseeable negative consequences, a lack of public support and any credible evidence in their favour. The rather disturbing conclusion that I have reached is that media hacks, politicians and public health advocates have a number of things in common:

    • Cushy well paid jobs that require no special talent or expertise;

    • Inability to form rounded opinions and to understand debates that extend beyond the “if it saves one child…” level;

    • A limited grasp of ethics and a lack of moral fibre; and,

    • Complete contempt for public opinion unless immediately threatening or useful.

    The stranglehold these groups exert on the free flow of information to the general public has for many years stifled debate and presented a less than wholly truthful version of public health to the wider UK audience.

    Last week saw three major public health stories in the news. All were covered by the BBC and in each case the BBC online team allowed readers to “have their say”.

    The first story appropriately released on April 1st informed us that eating seven or more portions of fruit rather than five will prolong life. It was based on a “study” produced by one of the myriad starry eyed graduates of the Institute of Public Health inevitably described as an “expert” by the BBC. The study is a classic example of public health industry nonsense. It is statistically-based supposition with no supporting evidence and no controls that is summed up in the BBC article by a quote from Professor Tom Sanders:

    “You cannot extrapolate from this kind of information to make sensible pronouncements about what people should eat.”

    It is a sentiment echoed in many of the comments from the public who seem to understand the ridiculousness of trying to use household survey data to quantify the impact of what is in fact a slogan intended to encourage people to eat a bit more veg. The top rated readers comment reads:

    “Risk of death remains 100%, no matter how healthy your lifestyle is.”

    Some other highly rated comments have the added benefit of being amusing:

    “5 pints of cider was hard enough – now I’ve got to drink 7?”

    “Unfortunately the only fruit I like is Watermelons. Eating 5 of those was enough of a struggle; I don’t think I can continue to work full time If I’m going to get 7 in.”

    The second story released the following day covered the more serious subject of a proposed ban on e-cigs in public places and a minimum price for alcohol in Wales. The story featured a particularly ill-informed representative of the political class repeating the propaganda that public health has told him to say about health inequalities, the affordability of alcohol, tobacco and e-cigs. Mark Drakeford, the Welsh Health Minister confirmed for anyone still in doubt that public health is not a science but an ideology when he stated:

    “I have concerns about the impact of e-cigarettes on the enforcement of Wales’ smoking ban. That’s why we are proposing restricting their use in enclosed public places.

    And he went on to add:

    “I am also concerned that their use in enclosed public places could normalise smoking behaviour.

    In fairness to the BBC, critical counterpoints are included in the article but the final word is given to the Chief Medical Officer who adds a touch of jingoism to spice up the quasi-religious ideology:

    “On the seventh anniversary of the smoking ban, it is symbolic that Wales is once again at the forefront of a new set of radical proposals to improve public health.”

    The members of the public commenting below the story also appear to appreciate the true nature of the proposal. The top rated comments include this:

    “I am a non smoker… But I think the health authorities should investigate what chemicals are within the product and if they pose a risk, then consider a ban.. However, if it is simply banning them for ‘undermining’ the smoking ban – that smells of a police state. People have the right to be free.”

    And this:

    “The smoking ban was brought in on the premise of secondhand smoke being a health risk. This proposed ban seems to be based on nothing more than e-cigs looking like smoking. 
It certainly looks like pure vindictiveness on the part of a power crazed health fascist.”

    Together with the utterly magnificent:

    “They need to ban water too. When its in a glass it looks just like vodka…surely a bad example for the children.”

    No doubt there are those who might take the third comment seriously and the worrying thing is that they may be in a position of authority somewhere near you.

    The following day, a third story about plain packaging for cigarettes appeared to stimulate certain BBC journalists to something akin to orgasm. The online version is notable for the desperate attempts by the public health secretary and her shadow to outdo each other in the dishonesty stakes as both try to justify a law that will have far reaching consequences way beyond tobacco on the basis of no evidence whatsoever other than the speculation of a supremely unqualified “independent expert” who thinks it might have a miniscule impact on smoking uptake and the disingenuous claims of tobacco control activists. In the sad, twisted world of Luciana Berger, that apparently amounts to “overwhelming evidence”.

    Despite the relentless support of the BBC’s “impartial” health correspondent, the waffle from Westminster and the sham “independent” report have not impressed the BBC’s audience. The top rated reader comment is:

    “Given that tobacco advertising is banned in the UK, it can’t legally be sold to under-age children, packaging has large health warnings on them, and products cannot be openly displayed when on sale, is ‘plain’ packaging actually going to make any difference at all? Kids will just get cigarettes, regardless of brand or packaging and often from ‘non-retail’ sources.”

    Reflecting points made in Westminster, another highly rated comment reads:

    “Heroin comes in plain packaging too”

    I personally rather liked this well rated comment:

    “I used to smoke but quit about 10 years ago, and I can assure everyone reading this that packaging played absolutely NO part in me becoming a smoker. It’s yet another case of a politician having no clue what she’s talking about”.

    Had these comments been published in a conservative newspaper, public health disciples might be able to claim that they represented a minority reactionary response to progressive ideas. But they appeared on the BBC which has a broad and if anything possibly left of centre appeal, suggesting that despite Jane Ellison’s claims, the public appears not to back the increasingly authoritarian demands of the public health industry and recognises the cowardice and dishonesty of those politicians who seek to appease it. Unfortunately, the self-important elite are not listening because they only embrace public opinion when it suits them to do so.

  5. Harleyrider1978 Says:

  6. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    Top court rules against smokers with lung cancer

    Apr 11,2014
    The Supreme Court yesterday refused appeals by 30 cancer-stricken smokers seeking damages from a tobacco company, saying “no definite causal relation exists” between smoking and each plaintiff’s individual case of lung cancer.

    The court also ruled that tobacco company KT&G is not liable for damages because the company didn’t engage in unlawful practices such as hiding the risks of smoking or misleading consumers.

    The landmark ruling, which upholds a lower court’s decision, marks the first time the Supreme Court ruled on smoking and its effects on smokers, ending a 15-year legal battle between the smokers and KT&G.

    “Even if there is evidence that there is a higher lung cancer incidence rate among smokers, it doesn’t necessarily mean that smoking is a sole cause of lung cancer,” the court said.

    “Just the fact that a smoker suffers lung cancer can’t serve as conclusive evidence to prove a causal relationship between smoking and the cancer,” the court continued. “There are different kinds of lung cancer. Some of the cancers are greatly affected by smoking, but others aren’t.”

    The court also said that other external factors or biological factors might have played a role in causing the plaintiffs’ lung cancer and added that the cigarette manufacturer didn’t conceal the health risks of smoking.

    Although all three rulings in the tobacco suit have now been in favor of KT&G, the appeals ruling by the Seoul High Court differs from the first trial and the Supreme Court ruling by acknowledging the causal relationship between smoking and cancer. But the high court didn’t order KT&G to pay compensation.

    Yesterday’s ruling will be a precedent for future smoking cases, including one being brought by a state-run health insurance agency against KT&G.

    The National Health Insurance Service is preparing to file lawsuits against tobacco companies to seek compensation for health care expenses caused by what it calls smoking-related diseases.

    The government body said that the Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t dampen its chance of winning because it has collected extensive data to prove the correlation between smoking and cancer. It will file its suit Monday.

    The Korean Association on Smoking or Health, a nonprofit organization that champions tougher restrictions on smoking, condemned the court’s decision yesterday.

    “The ruling gives an exemption to the tobacco companies and ignores the human right to health,” the association said in a statement.

    “The ruling was supposed to have important implications at a time when the National Health Insurance Service plans to sue tobacco companies,” it said. “We don’t believe that the Supreme Court ruled carefully because it didn’t allow for a single open argument.”

    The case in Korea began in 1999 when 36 people filed two separate suits seeking 474.7 million won ($454,700) in damages.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: