Calling Out the Zealots

The Chief Zealots of Tobacco Control have been like Gods. They can say and do no wrong. Even when they are nasty and snidey to anyone who dares to contest their allegations about e-cig and SHS harm, no one has dared to ‘call them out’. Thus, Simple Simon Chapman in Australia has deemed himself to be shielded by the likes of Nicola Roxon (former Oz Health Minister) from criticism. He is always RIGHT, and can do no wrong.

But an Oz MP has called him out. The full story can be found at:

The Oz MP is called Senator Madigan. (I use the term ‘MP’ loosely since I do not know the Oz (Australian) democratic system) Senator Madigan has called out Simple Simon Chapman because SSC has been pronouncing upon the desirability of wind farms and denigrating claims that the noise from  windmills is causing harm. As usual, Simple Simon claims some expertise about these machines and their effects, when, in fact, he has none. He does not, and cannot possibly, know whether or not these machines are causing damage to those people who live near them. Senator Madigan said:

“Professor Chapman’s undergraduate qualifications were in sociology. His PhD looked into the relationship between cigarette smoke and advertising. I question his expertise, I question his qualifications…..”

Senator Madigan questions his expertise about wind-farms. I would also question his expertise about anything to do with tobacco. It seems to me that his expertise is in ‘brainwashing’ and little else. ‘Brainwashing’ equals ‘sociology’.

Another example of ‘expert professors’ turned up a couple of days ago in the form of ‘Professor’ Renee Bittoun. She chose to pronounce about e-cigs. She knows nothing about them, but promotes herself as ‘an expert’ upon them. She claims that she KNOWS that they will lead to taking up tobacco smoking, even though she knows nothing whatsoever about them, or THE FACTS in relation to them.

Further, in the USA, we have self-styled ‘Doctor’ Glantz, the motor mechanic elevated to “Doctor of Medicine” by God know whom. But the acquisition of ‘authority’ seems to be everywhere. “Professor Emeritus of Public Health”???? Such titles depend upon the idea that there is a ‘standard human body’, and that all these bodies are construct in precisely the same way. How, then, car they explain precisely why it was that my wife, and not someone else’s wife, came to suffer from multiple sclerosis? Why her and not hundreds of thousands of similar women? Why HER? I use that as an example, of course, but the same could apply to the development of lung cancer.

There is a very, very tiny number of infants who die from mouth cancers. Single figures in the age-range up to, say, five years old. But they exist. WHY? The ‘Standard Human Body’ paradigm requires that such abnormalities cannot possibly exist.

May I once again draw attention to the graphs in the Doctors Study. We see this:


That graph is supposed to indicate the survival rates of smokers as compared with non-smokers. It seems to suggest a gradual change. But, if you look carefully, you will see that the vertical axis is ‘squashed up’ as compared with the horizontal axis. What the graph SHOULD look is something like this:


Did Doll deliberately squash up the axies? I do not know. But the difference between the two graphs is very pronounced. The effect of smoking, if that is the only factor, does not begin, no matter how much persons might smoke before they are of 40, at the very earlies. Even at 50, the effect is very small. Even at 60, only 10% are effected (that is, 90% are not).

But even in that ‘model’, there is no explanation of why non-smokers survived longer. The importance of that idea lies in the fact that, once the doctors stated to die off ‘en masse’ in old age, the lines on the graph are as near as damn-it parallel. That is, smoker or not, all the doctors were dying at the same rate. Once past the age of 60-ish, all the doctors started to peg out ‘pro-rata’, whether they were smokers or not. What is critical to understand is that non-smokers died.


Strange ideas come to mind. For example, one’s grandson bought a tub of damsons mixed with cream. The quantity was too much for him. I and his grandma finished the bowl of damson and cream off (and delicious it was!).

Question: “If you eat damsons and cream in massive quantities, is it the damsons or the cream which make you obese?” Or, to put it another way, does eating masses of damsons make you fat, or is it the amount of cream? Or is it that you ate a couple of hamburgers before the damsons an cream, or is it that you ate the damsons and cream which tipped the scales?



I think that what I am trying to say is that the Zealots have cornered the idea of ‘CAUSE’. What is wonderful is that some MPs have realised that ‘correlation’ does not equal ’cause’. Having said that, it is obvious that the import of ‘dodgy’ fags is growing.

It does not matter that this import is ‘illicit’, since the Healthists caused the ‘illicitness’. Thus, no one should feel bad about defying silly laws.




10 Responses to “Calling Out the Zealots”

  1. cherie79 Says:

    I guess we are all insomniacs here! Saddest funeral I ever attended was of the three year old daughter of a friend who was found to have stomach cancer when she was about a year old, explain that to me.

    • junican Says:

      Sad indeed, cherie. Until the Zealots can explain such events scientifically, I’ll always doubt their reasons for others.

  2. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Chapman’s Wind Farm Mania has offered us an “unintended side effect” that we should be thankful for. Note the following Chapman quote and how applicable it is to the smoking battles:

    “people primed by watching online information about health problems from wind turbines, reported more symptoms after being exposed to recorded infrasound or to sham (fake) infrasound. The study provided powerful evidence for the nocebo hypothesis: the idea that anxiety and fear about wind turbines being spread about by anti-wind farm groups, will cause some people hearing this scary stuff to get those symptoms.”

    That’s EXACTLY what many of us have claimed about reactions to secondhand smoke being driven by the fears spread by antismoking campaigners like Simon Chapman … and yet I’m fairly certain that he would vehemently disagree with his thinking being so applied.

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      I suppose that the difficulty would be in discriminating between real effects and nocebo effects. Simple Simon would claim that SHS symptoms are real. Funny how no one seemed to suffer the effects of SHS before the Zealots started to claim that they existed.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        ” Funny how no one seemed to suffer the effects of SHS before the Zealots started to claim that they existed.”

        Which is exactly why the nocebo hypothesis wins out. You can go back through hundreds of thousands of pages of pre-1975 literature, and you find virtually *NOTHING* in support of the “SHS is killing me and giving me attacks etc etc.”

        I think it was someplace in Brains that I gave the one example of “sort of such a thing” that I ran across in reading thousands upon thousands of such books (heh, ok, the books may have been Stephen King instead of Emmanuel Kant, but they were still books!) over the years: a short story by Isaac Asimov — an author who was actually at least a mild Antismoker on the personal level (according to a relative I once spoke to about it.)

        In the Asimov story detectives solved a murder partly because of the completely strange and unique extremism of one of the characters. That character basically went into what would be seen today as a NORMAL song and dance Anti routine when people lit up near him, or, heaven forbid, in his HOME! The reaction was SOOOO totally unknown back in the 1950s and 60s, that the detective realized it was a psychosis related to a fire the fellow must have accidentally caused with a burning cigarette back in the days when he’d smoked as a youth!

        I forget if I posted the following here or someplace else, but it’s worth repeating in case someone hasn’t seen it. I’ll put it in a separate post because it’s a bit long. I hope the *bolding* of the search phrases comes through correctly. They’re not supposed to have asterisks or quotes around them or anything.


  3. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    You can see the power of language in that most people under age 40 will probably think that people for centuries have been saying “kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray.”


    Use Google’s NGram to search for the phrase “like licking an ashtray” and you get this:

    THE IDEA DID NOTE EVEN EXIST in any written form until after the 1975 Godber World Smoking And Health Conference where they came up with the idea of making smokers quit by getting nonsmokers to fear and hate them! Seriously!

    You can see how NGram works by putting in some other phrases that got “started” as ideas at different times. Make sure you put 2008 in the ending box of the date range since it sometimes defaults to 2000 instead. It’s fascinating!

    Mid 1990s and cell phones

    text messaging

    Early 1990s and cell phones

    cell phone

    1990 itself and the real start of email:

    send me an email

    The growth of feminist awareness in the early 1980s:

    date rape

    MADD’s late 1970s drunk driving campaign:

    drunk driving

    Mid 1970s and smoking (Godber Conference again)

    secondhand smoke

    Early 1970s and Nixon:

    I am not a crook

    Early 1970s and the start of my Peace Studies Program at Manhattan College:

    Peace Studies Program (heh, and Peace Studies Major peaked when I graduated in 1973!)

    The 1960s hippies:

    flower children

    The 1950s music scene:

    rock and roll

    1930s Franklin Roosevelt:

    nothing to fear but fear

    Teddy Roosevelt back around 1900:

    carry a big stick

    You can see where the phrases hit “public consciousness” where they almost didn’t exist ANYWHERE beforehand! (NGram allows only phrases with a maximum length of five words.)

    It’s also interesting to put

    The Beatles

    in, look at it, and then readjust the ending date to 1955, 1965, and 1975 !


    • junican Says:

      “Kissing a smoker is like kissing (or licking) an ashtray”

      1. Who ever kissed (or licked) an ashtray?
      2. Why did we never notice that effect when we were doing an awful lot of kissing in our youth?

      I wish that I had known that kissing a girl could be replicated by kissing an ashtray. It would have saved me an awful lot of bother.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        LOL! Yeah, and saved a lot of broken hearts! :> Did you get to see the NGrams though? You can see pretty much exactly where the phrase started and was promoted. Amazing what you can do with the right kind of marketing money for brainwashing, eh?

        – MJM

  4. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    You can actually see that after 175 years of NO ONE using the phrase, “licking an ashtray” suddenly appeared in 1976 (use a “smoothing” of 1) and grew with ups and downs from there. A thought deliberately inserted into the public consciousness to change the way people thought — Orwell would be proud (or more exactly, horrified.)

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      Yes – a deliberate trick and there are lots of them.
      It is 2 am here and I am knackered. I must to bed. I’ll check your links tomorrow.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: