I finally got round to reading last Saturday’s Sun newspaper today while watching England flop. I came across a two inch report:

Illegal cig blitz ‘flop'”

A blitz on ciggie smuggling gangs is failing, an MPs’ report says today. Almost 50% more illegal fags slipped through the net in 2012 than in 2011 despite a boost in resources for anti-smuggling operations. Arrests, prosecutions and convictions have fallen in the last three years. Home Affairs Committee chairman Keith Vax said: “It’s a matter of grave concern”.

So what are we to make of the Tobacco Control Industry’s repeated claims that smuggling has fallen? It’s perfectly clear, isn’t it? The TCI was lying. I don’t mean misconstruing figures and stats, I mean lying pure and simple. Is it any wonder that they are in such a panic over getting legislation about PP? They know damned well that the war on drugs smuggling fags has been lost, and so they try to pretend otherwise for as long as possible in order to get their precious PP legislation enacted. Corruption comes in many forms. It does not need to be financial. We know that people ‘get their kicks’ in all sorts of ways. The current hysteria about the world cup is precisely indicative of this fact. Millions upon millions of people are experiencing great joy (or misery) because ‘their’ team has won (or lost). That joy has nothing to do with any sort of ‘physical gain’ for those people – it is purely emotional.  In the case of the TCI Zealots, right up to the top, their ‘kicks’ come from winning against the tobacco industry. They will say and do almost anything to WIN. We can understand such emotional manipulation in sport and, even, in commercial advertising, but in matters of health, we expect FACTS and TRUTH. That is the basis of our trust in doctors, and scientists. It is for this reason that the WHOLE of tobacco control is corrupt. From the beginning, it was organised as though FACTS and TRUTH were irrelevant because the war with tobacco companies justified any tactic or strategy. Perhaps that might have been acceptable in direct confrontations, such as in the law courts, but it is not acceptable when it’s objective is to deceive the people by the use of false medical arguments.  It is horrifying that the Medical Profession has permitted such corrupt practices. But, there again, the REAL medical profession does not include epidemiology. Epidemiology is mathematics and can be applied to any subject, such as studies commissioned by supermarkets about customer preferences. It has been a pity that the corrupt practices of the TCI have ‘gelled’ with the notions of the pre-eminence of emotions in politics. The two corruptions have produced laws which ban entrepreneurs from offering bar services to smokers on the basis of irrational, emotional fears. Once again, in the comments to yesterday’s post, garyk has come up trumps. In Doll’s Hospital Study, there were only a few hundred lung cancer patients in London hospitals. It may be true that there were more smokers, pro rata, with lung cancer than non-smokers, but there were millions of smokers in London. Why were the number of patients with LC so low? If smoking was such a problem, there should have been tens of thousands of patients with lung cancer. WHY WERE THERE NOT MORE? As we have seen, in the Doctors Study, out of 25,000 deaths, there were only 1,000 lung cancer deaths, even though about 70% of the doctors were smokers. WHY WERE THERE NOT MORE? Such things need to be explained, otherwise the science is junk. What it comes down to is that there must be a reason that some individuals who enjoyed tobacco were more susceptible to LC than the vast majority of smokers. —— But there are also other factors which the UN is involved in. I dare say that the UN, in its drive for ‘sustainability’, has in mind to convert tobacco growing lands to veggie patches. Well…. Yes …. But the labourers would be exploited in just the same way. What seems to me to be obvious is that the Government of the UK (by that, I mean the ‘Elected Representatives’) must rid themselves of the admonitions of ‘special interest groups’. It is not obvious why that is. The reason is that politics itself is ’emotional’. When you mix in emotional subjects such as SHS, for example, you get a multiplication of emotions. It is those multiplications which cause WARS.


9 Responses to “Corruption”

  1. moss Hart Says:

    Junican, corruption for the people you speak of is the norm. Their blueprint isn’t just similar to the Nazi way of thinking, or the foisting of pseudo science upon people – it is identical! This is what concerns me mostly about this mindless subversion of logic.
    The question is: is this nation, or it’s government fostering a movement which in time will bring about something far worse than anything attributed to the detriments of smoking?
    It’s time to get rid. Already they have rendered the present government to something akin to a paper moon!

    • junican Says:

      I think so, although I would refer more to the ‘World Government’ side of things. Think of the potential for ‘Civil War’ throughout the World if there is an imposition of elitist, totalitarian, fascist control? The idea is horrific. And the very people who are supposed to be aware, our elected politicians, are sublimely indifferent.

  2. prog Says:

    Some liars are more equal than other liars.

  3. Frank J Says:

    To whom is this ‘smuggling’ a matter of ‘grave concern’ and why? is it because they are losing money or are they concerned about ‘health’ in way only really commenced in 2005? I and most people couldn’t give a hoot about it. Why do they? And why are they so concerned about ‘health’?

    Wasn’t the London Hospital study frowned on as it wasn’t exclusive? e.g. All Londoners, all tea drinkers, etc. items not taken into account, and dismissed by the DoH at the time because of this.

    I have to be pedantic again, Junican, Bear with me, perhaps I’m getting on a bit. My understanding of your analysis (which I rely on, particularly the age related) of the Doctors survey was that 28,000 doctors smoked and over a 50 year period, @4% developed and passed on of LC, and no non smoking Doctors died of LC. Is this correct, I hope so. It’s my crusade in my later years and it’s what I’ve been preaching for a while now to many people and I wouldn’t wish to look a total prat (well, at least no more than normal). After all, I don’t work for the TCI.

    • junican Says:

      Regarding the figures:
      Here is a link to Doll’s final report:
      Scroll down a couple of pages and you will see FIGURE 1.
      The first column is named “No. of deaths 1951-2001”
      The first item is “Cancer of the lung”. The total of deaths from that cause was 1,052.
      At the bottom of that column is to overall total of deaths from all causes which 25,346.

      The total number of doctors who took part in the study is not very important since only the diseases and deaths matter, but about 34,000 doctors were involved at the start, some 4,000 were lost, leaving 30,000. Of those, 25,000 died, so there were about 5,000 still alive at the end of the study.

      The calculation of the numbers of non-smokers etc who developed LC is a bit tricky. You can use the figures in the next three column to get a rough idea. Take the deaths from LC.
      Number of deaths from LC per thousand deaths were:
      Non-Smokers…..Ex-Smokers……Current smokers.
      Using those figures, you can assess the ratios which, very roughly (easier to calculate), are:
      Non-S………Ex-S……..Current S.
      Divide 1,050 by 20 equals 52.

      Non-S………..52 x 1 ….= 52.
      Ex-S………….52 x 4 = ..208.
      Current-S…..52 x 15 = 780.
      Of course, the total does not add up to 1,052 because of the rough rounding, but, at 1,040, it is near enough.
      The totals at the bottom are useful. If you add together ex-smokers and current smokers and call them ‘smokers’, then you get these figures:

      Non-S (cigs)…………..2019.
      Smokers (cigs)……..10034.

      The percentage of Non-S who died from LC is 2.6%.
      The percentage of Smokers is 9.8%.Thus, the percentage of smokers who DID NOT develop LC was 90.2%. But that is only for cigarette smokers. To be more accurate, you would also have to bring in ‘other smokers’ (the 8th and 9th columns). There, the ratios are:

      Ex-Other S…………..4.
      Current Other S……8.

      Calculating the totals:
      Ex-Other…………52 x 4 = 208.
      Current Other….52 x 8 = 416.

      Now we can add ‘other smokers’ to ‘cigarette smokes:

      Total smokers (died from LC)

      Ex-cig smokers……208.
      Current cig………….780.
      Ex- Other……………208.
      Current other………416.

      Total all smoker deaths:


      Thus, the percentage of ALL smokers who died from LC was 1612/22429 times 100 equals 7.2%. Thus, again, 92.8% of smokers DID NOT develop lung cancer.

      All figures very rough, as I have explained.

      Hope that helps.


      “Of grave concern”.
      Zealots use that trick over and over again. “It is very worrying” they say. You can see why they use those sort of phrases – it is to give an impression of seriousness. In this case, a lot depends upon the views of Keith Vaz. Is he a zealot or not? If he is not, then ‘the concern’ might be aimed at stopping PP in that PP can only make matters worse. If he is a zealot, then his ‘concern’ must be that smuggling is undermining the progress of persecution and prohibition.

    • garyk30 Says:

      Everyone has a chance of lung cancer death.
      Table 2
      Current smokers = 21% of lung cancers
      Ex-smokers = 61% of lung cancers
      Never-smokers = 18% of lung cancers

      Lung cancer deaths(lcd) = 160,000

      Current smokers(21%) = 33,600/46 million smokers
      (Rate= 7/10,000)

      Ex-smokers(61%) = 97,600/48 million ex-smokers
      (Rate= 20/10,000)

      Never-smokers(18%) = 28,800/136 million never-smokers
      (Rate= 2/10,000)

      Doll’s never-smoker rate was about 1.7/10,000

  4. garyk30 Says:

    Anti-smokers claim that 80-90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.

    They lie!!!!
    Antis have exaggerated the lung cancers that might be due to smoking by 100% or more.

    The lung cancer of a never-smoker can not be blamed on smoking and the same must be said for anyone with the same risk of lung cancer as those never-smokers.

    The findings below show that:
    1. 62% of the lung cancers were either never-smokers or ex-smokers with the same chance of lung cancer as never-smokers.

    2.. 38% of the lung cancers might be due to smoking.

    3. 51% of the ever-smokers lung cancers were ex-smokers with the same chance of lung cancer as the never-smokers.
    Most quit smoking sites state that:

    “Ten years after quitting, the risk of dying from lung cancer is no longer higher than that of a non-smoker.”

    11th International Lung Cancer Conference (ILCC)
    July 8 – 11, 2010; Rancho Palos Verdes, California

    Conference News

    ILCC Many Lung Cancer Patients Stopped Smoking Years Before Diagnosis
    Medscape Medical News, July 14, 2010
    July 14, 2010 (Los Angeles, California) — Much of what people think they know about smoking and lung cancer might be wrong, according to findings presented here at the 11th International Lung Cancer Conference.

    For example, many if not most patients with a history of smoking quit decades before. In a retrospective study of 626 people with lung cancer treated at a tertiary-care facility in Southern California, 482 (77%) had a history of smoking. Of those, only 71 patients (14.7%) were still smoking at the time of their diagnosis. Of the remaining 411 patients, 245 (60%) had not smoked for a mean of 18 years, 8 of whom had quit 51 to 60 years earlier. The other 166 (40%) had stopped smoking within 10 years of their diagnosis.

    626 people with lung cancer

    144(23%) were never-smokers

    482 (77%) had a history of smoking.

    71 patients (14.7%) were still smoking at the time of their diagnosis

    411 patients(85.3%) were ex-smokers

    245 (60% of ever-smokers)) had not smoked for a mean of 18 years(their chance for lung cancer is no longer higher than that of a non-smoker)

    166 (40%) had stopped smoking within 10 years of their diagnosis

    39% – 245 of the total of 626- were ex-smokers with 10 years or more since quitting

    51% – 245 of 482- of the ever-smokers lung cancers were ex-smokers with the same chance of lung cancer as the never-smokers.

    62% ( 23% + 39%) of the lung cancers were either never-smokers or ex-smokers with the same chance of lung cancer as never-smokers.

    48 million x/s x 60% = 28.8 million same risk as n/s
    Leaves 19.2 x/s same risk as c/s

    n/s = 136 million adults + 28.8 million x/s = 164.8 million non-smokers

    62% of the 157,000 lung cancer deaths = 97,340 non-smoker lung cancer deaths

    97,340 per 164.8 million = lung cancer death rate of 5.9/10,000.

    c/s = 46 million + 19.2 x/s = 65.2 million smokers

    38% of the 157,000 lung cancer deaths = 59,660 smoker lung cancer deaths

    59,660 per 66.2 million = lung cancer death rate of 9.0/10,000

    Smokers death rate is 1.53 times greater than the non-smoker death rate.
    RR= 1.53

    If a smoker dies from lung cancer, there is a 65% probability something other than smoking ’caused’ the lung cancer.

    • junican Says:

      I prefer to think of ‘synergy’. When decent ‘scientists’ say that cancer is ‘multi-factorial’, we have a tendency to think that that means ‘either this, that, or the other’. In fact, ‘multi-factorial’ means, possibly, in any given case, “resulting from a combination of many different causes”, of which smoking, for any given individual, might be one. There is no such thing as THE STANDARD HUMAN BODY.

  5. moss Hart Says:

    “Resulting from many different causes,” junican ,must be closer to the truth of things, and I firmly believe that the general atmosphere has been tampered with, or abused far more than one would ever admit to.
    The most noticeable thing about the condition of our atmosphere is, how little is said about it. A cloud of tabacco smoke has now become more injurious than a cloud of nuclear fall-out!
    A few years ago, here in the UK petrol/gas was unobtainable, therefore very few vehicles were on the roads. After a few days people were writing letters to the press, stating what an enormous difference there was in the quality of the air that we breathe. It was a very common conversation between people because people were saying how easier it was to breathe!
    We all experienced this (change) and I’m sure junican can remember it happening. If you went out for a walk you were surrounded by a particular strange smell. actually, it was fresh air, or unpolluted air that we could smell!
    We have adjusted ourselves to accepting pollution. But if only to add a small amount of credence to my belief – note the shift/emphasis to cleaner running electric vehicles. Would such a shift take place if there were not a healthier reason?
    But as junican rightly suggests, causes for LC must likely are cumulative.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: