The Tobacco Control War Machine

For decades we have been battered by health warnings about smoking tobacco, without any direct attack upon us smokers. The result of the propaganda has been that smoking prevalence decreased year after year. People did not much mind the ‘advice’ since they could decide for themselves. No one forced them to stop smoking, and so no one really contested the truth of the advice. Why bother if you can decide for yourself whether to smoke or not? Studies here and there, all over the world, came and went and hardly anyone knew about them. At most, there might have been a brief mention in a newspaper or on the TV, but in a very indirect way. For most of the past several decades, the word ‘c*nc*r’ was verboten, so that the it was tobacco control zealots to get their propaganda into the public consciousness.

It is hard to be certain what happened in the past, but, gradually, a little at a time, newspapers did start mentioning cancer, but almost always in a brief report which emphasised the possibility of a cure. “BREAK-THROUGH EXPECTED: Doctors believe that they have discovered a potential cure for XX [insert cancer location of choice]. Tests have been encouraging. Doctor Sxxxx said: “More trials will be needed, but we believe that we are on the right track”

Thus, the ‘verboten’ of talking about cancer was broken down – by talking about potential cures.

Never for a moment would it ever have occurred to me that these reports were part of an organised attempt by a special interest group to ‘open up’ the ‘cancer discussion’ so that they could get the propaganda against the enjoyment of tobacco off the ground. A question that arises is why was it that cancer was such a ‘verboten’ subject. I suppose that the power of the tobacco industry could have been influential. That is the sort of thing that we know nothing about, except that the Zealots keep going on about the mendacity of tobacco companies throughout the middle of the last century. I accept the idea of the mendacity of tobacco companies, but not in the sense that tobacco control has claimed. Tobacco companies lied when they suggested, in one way or another, via advertising, for example, that there was no potential risk to smoking. But what should they have done? When has Big Pharma advertised its products with anything but a cursory nod to ‘possible side-effects’? Should tobacco companies have advertised cigs with a warning of ‘side-effects’? Does Big Pharma advertise chantix with warnings that: “If you use this drug to help you stop smoking, then you might commit suicide”? Of course not! What they do is pass the problem to doctors by saying: “Check with your doctor before using this product”. That is a clever way of distracting attention from the lethal nature of the product.


The above is by way of introduction – essential to understand what has been happening over the last several decades. First, their was the eugenicist movement in the USA which not only prohibited alcohol but also tobacco. Most States in the USA not only banned alcohol but also tobacco. In those days, the eugenicist objectives (“breed only the best human lines”) were the paramount ideal. Prohibition ended in the 1920s, but the eugenicist ideal continued, and culminated in the horrors of the NAZI ‘final solution’. WW2 changed everything again, but it did not stop people like Doll dreaming. The only difference was the nature of the dream. Rather than ‘race’ or ‘fitness’ being the eugenicist goal, it became ‘health’. “Everyone is equal, but the healthiest are more equal than the others”. Even today, the eugenicist ideal continues, except that it is now disguised as ‘equality of outcomes’, bla, bla.


It is curious how things work out. It is the battle over e-cigs which has opened up the workings of the eugenicist minds for all to see. This is the final say that Renee Bittoun (a long-time tobacco company antagonist) in a radio ‘discussion’:

RENEE BITTOUN: That’s the biggest concern I have. Keep in mind that nicotine from this product, comes from the tobacco industry; their past has been pretty atrocious and why can’t we imagine, until proven otherwise, that this is not going to be the same thing happening over again.

She MUST KNOW that e-cigs did not come from the tobacco industry, but note that she says ‘ NICOTINE from this product…’ comes from the tobacco industry.

What I see is an attack upon the tobacco industry, and not an attack on e-cigs. If the nicotine did not come from the tobacco industry, she would have no problem with them.


The upshot, which is becoming more and more obvious, is that smokers and vapers are caught up in a WAR between the Tobacco Control Industry and the Tobacco Industry. This WAR has been going on for over thirty years. There may not be tanks, aircraft and troops involved, but it is a WAR.

When you see this, you can understand why it is that ‘science’ has been distorted. In a WAR, science must serve the WAR. Politics must also serve the WAR: the WAR that is being conducted is between Tobacco Control and the Tobacco Industry. The Tobacco Industry is like a besieged city, which can only repel attacks. Tobacco Control is like a  besieging army, prodding here and there. The difference between the two is that the besieging army has to rob and enslave the surrounding communities to to maintain itself. It is sad that the ‘elders’ of surrounding communities (in our case, the UK Government) have agreed to hand over their wealth and possessions to the besieging army. Perhaps the ‘elders’ accepted the promises of the besiegers that they and their people would be rewarded with ‘blessings’ if they handed over their wealth. The ‘blessings’ would take the form of longer, or even eternal, life, since disease would be eradicated.

Who will win? Frankly, it does not matter. What is important is that ordinary people will lose. They are collateral damage. Their ‘elders’ will have let them down.


The solution? The people’s  ‘elders’ must wise up. They must STOP accepting ‘snake oil’ benefits. They must demand monetary returns for the money that they are expending. Further, the ‘elders’ must demand positive proof that the recalcitrant City is as awful as the besieging army says it is. Perhaps the inhabitants of the City are perfectly happy.

It follows, as night follows day, that our ‘elders’ must reject the demands of the EU Theocracy out of hand, especially about e-cigs since they are not tobacco and ought not to be even considered under any EU ‘tobacco directive’. I suspect that our ‘elders’ do not even know that they have allowed themselves to become involved in the WAR between Tobacco Control and the Tobacco Industry.


Amidst the miasma, there is one solid fact. In the McTear Case, TC failed abysmally even to prove, only on ‘the balance of probabilities’, their main proposal, which is that smoking causes LC. The ‘elders’ of our tribe (Brits) should be aware that our ‘country’ has been invaded as part if the WORLD WAR which is continuing between Tobacco Control and the Tobacco Industry.


Finally, and this might upset some vapers, it is a matter of fact, from the Doctors Study, that only about 4.05% of the Doctors got lung cancer, despite about 70% being smokers. That is, out of some 25,00o deaths, only 1,000 died from LC. That is, 24,000 died from some other cause. Further, according to that study, although 85% of smokers died from ‘tobacco related diseases’, so did 84% of non-smokers. Thus, the REALITY is that vaping makes little difference. However, what is important is that an individual ENJOYS what he does.

A person who takes up vaping, merely because he thinks that he will avoid ‘tobacco related diseases’, is, or has allowed himself to be, deluded. Change from smoking to vaping by all means, but do not allow your mind to be corrupted. If you fell better after going to e-cigs, that is fine. Accept your feelings. There is nothing wrong with that. But do not accept ANYTHING from the Tobacco Control Industry. They do not have your welfare in their minds. All that they have in their minds is THE WAR.

There is a WAR going on between the likes of Glantz, Chapman, etc and the Tobacco Industry. I personally feel no affiliation between either of them. Both are corrupt.

I have made a note to talk about corruption tomorrow, It is worth talking about,




8 Responses to “The Tobacco Control War Machine”

  1. Rose Says:

    The upshot, which is becoming more and more obvious, is that smokers and vapers are caught up in a WAR between the Tobacco Control Industry and the Tobacco Industry

    I think that it’s more of an ongoing battle in the War for the riches of the Natural World between people and big business, in which the people at the moment are definitely losing whether they are aware of it or not.

    ‘Great future for tobacco in medicine’ 2009

    ““Tobacco is not for cigarette making or smoking, it is a medicinal plant”.

    Bitotech Elite, as a company with alternative use of tobacco is aimed at 100 million turnover is taking part in Contract Farming in Malaysia. In coming months it is concentrate on many health supplements and nutrition foods which are made from tobacco extracts.”

    It’s not just tobacco,tobacco is just one herb amongst many, tobacco seems to be used more as a useful distraction.

    At the same time as we were ratifying the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the campaign against tobacco later getting all the press, The Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD) was going through the EU

    EU bans herbal remedies: another victory for corporate interests

    “Third, and most important, the ban suits the big pharmaceutical corporations, who lobbied openly and enthusiastically for its adoption. The large chains will be able to afford the compliance costs. Smaller herbalists will not, and many will go out of business, leaving the mega-firms with something close to a monopoly.

    Here’s the thing, though. Such a ban would never have got through the national legislatures. MPs would have been deluged, as MEPs were, by letters from thousands of constituents who felt that their health was being imperilled. In a national parliament, this would almost certainly have been enough to block the proposal; but the EU was designed more or less explicitly to withstand public opinion.

    Lobbyists understood from the outset that their best chance was to push through in Brussels what no democratic parliament would accept. See, once again, how the EU has become a mechanism for the advancement of corporate interests in defiance of the common weal.”

    Apart from pharmaceutical use of it’s extracts, tobacco is now being used to make vaccines and as a factory for drugs.

    For example –

    Bayer Starts Clinical Phase I Study With Personalized Vaccine From Tobacco Plants
    http: //

    Of course all this wouldn’t be happening at all if the drugs companies were allowed to patent natural plants and their components, but that’s not allowed.

    Of course they can synthesise them but what’s the point if the plants complete with instructions, are still available to all.

    Getting the real thing out of the public’s hands by one means or another is their only option and so quietly funding prohibitionists of all kinds would appear to be a very good way to do it.

    • junican Says:

      I have no reason to doubt any of that Rose. As I’s sure you are aware, Australia banned people from growing tobacco plants in 1901. It could not possibly have been about health at the time. The only reasonable reason seems to be to protect vested (wealthy) interests in the tobacco industry at the time.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    TC rages on about lung cancer so much that we can be forgiven for forgetting that there are other cancers.

    The Doc Study data shows that lung cancer deaths were only 20% of the cancer deaths.

    ‘All other cancers’ were 74% of the cancer deaths.
    That would include colon, brain, nymph node, testicular cancer and others.

    Never smokers were 31% more likely, than current smokers, to have died from those ‘other cancers’.

    never smokers = 17% of total deaths

    Current smokers = 13% of total deaths

    You can get a lung transplant; but, not so with testicles or brains.

  3. harleyrider1978 Says:


    Court overturns Bullitt smoking ban

    Three years into court proceedings, the Kentucky Supreme Court has issued a final ruling that overturns a smoking ban approved by the Bullitt County Board of Health.

    The board exceeded its authority, the court said, so the ban is invalid.

    Opponents and supporters of the smoking ban — which prohibited smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants — argued their cases before the Kentucky Supreme Court in April. The hearing followed mixed rulings from Bullitt Circuit Court and the state Court of Appeals.

    The county board of health approved the ban in 2011. Board members argued that preventing health risks caused by secondhand smoke falls under its jurisdiction, as provided in a state law that allows it to adopt regulations “necessary to protect the health of the people.”

    However, Bullitt Fiscal Court and the eight cities within the county claimed in a lawsuit that Fiscal Court is the only legislative agency that can enact a countywide smoking ban.

    They asked Bullitt Circuit Court to prevent the board of health from implementing the ban. Bullitt Circuit Judge Rodney Burress agreed that the board did not have that authority and stopped the ban from taking effect.

    The state Court of Appeals later overturned Burress’ ruling, saying the board has the right to impose regulations involving public health, including a smoking ban.

    The decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal’s ruling and reinstates Bullitt Circuit Court’s judgment, according to court documents.

    • junican Says:

      I have no doubt that they will be back eventually. That is how these prohibitionists work, provided that they can get funding. It’s how they get their kicks in life – at someone else’s expense, of course.

  4. garyk30 Says:

    “Tobacco companies lied when they suggested, in one way or another, via advertising, for example, that there was no potential risk to smoking.”

    ‘Potential Risk’ is open to definition.

    Doll’s Hospital study found 709 lung cancer patients out of a London population of about 10 million people.

    Adult males would have been about 3.5 million.
    About 95% of them smoked = 3.3 million

    That is 1 lung cancer per about 4,654 men.

    An individual male smoker had a 99.98% chance of not being one of the lung cancer victums.

    That isn’t much of a risk!

    Doll’s later Doctor Study has shown that non-smokers have the same potential risk for death from a smoking ’caused’ disease as a current smoker.

    84% vs 85% = smokers have only a 1.01 times more risk of such a death.

    That is a very minor ‘potential risk’.

    These days it is all about the cheeeeldren; but, a child that smokes is only 1.01 times more likely to someday die, as a never smoker child, from a disease ’caused’ by smoking.

    If offered the Truth, I doubt that most teen-agers would be swayed by TC’s brand of BS.

    • junican Says:

      That’s why I used the phrase ‘potential risk’. It excuses any trickery that the TCI get up to. If such risks were generally accepted, then the whole sea coast-line would be fenced off, with signs everywhere saying:”DANGER. KEEP OUT!”

  5. vapingpoint Says:

    Really enjoyed this post and the comments. My particular obsession is the fact that traumatising pictures, visual abuse, verbal abuse and subliminals on cigarette packs have not been tested as dangerous nocebos.

    Graphic warning labels are more than just warnings. All graphic warning labels viewed over and over and over again, slogans and advertising replaced every two years with new ones accepted into the subconscious mind repetitively by smokers using tobacco products is AN ACT OF VIOLENCE, a self fulfilling prophecy, IMPLANTED disease and truly criminal legislation. They are not just unconstitutional, they are vicious nocebos.

    I would like to see more investigation into the effect on smokers who do not choose to stop smoking over years and years of seeing them. This is anti-health for those already at a disadvantage, and anti-health for anyone whose eyes see them repeatedly. And it is a dreadful probability that they might be used as anti-health on foods and alcohol, or even e cigarettes!

    In Doll’s studies, he himself questions why, at the end of all the years of it, smoking seemed more deadly than at the beginning.He noticed a strange thing. Smoking became MORE harmful to smokers in the last section of his studies. He says….”When current cigarette smokers were compared with lifelong non-smokers, the excess mortality associated with smoking was already substantial during 1951-71, but it was considerably more extreme during 1971-91. During 1951-71, the death rates in cigarette smokers were about double those in non-smokers throughout middle age; during 1971-91, the corresponding difference was nearly treble. If, as is likely, most of the difference in mortality between smokers and non-smokers is actually caused by smoking then a threefold excess would imply that about two thirds of the deaths in middle age among the smokers were caused by tobacco. Even at older ages the excess mortality associated with tobacco was substantially greater in 1971-91 than it was during 1951-71. This difference between the apparent effects of tobacco in the two periods arose because age specific mortality decreased substantially only among non-smokers.”

    But, he realises this is not logical and wonders why the improvement in healthcare did not affect also the smokers.

    In the 1970’s warning nocebos first appeared on packs of cigarettes.

    Maybe I am not reading this properly and my obsession is a delusion!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: