The Standard Human Child

According the the Medical Establishment, not only is there a ‘standard human being’, but there is specifically a ‘standard human child’. At birth, all human children are perfect replicas of each other, and all conform to ‘life expectancy’ tables. In fact, you can go back further. At conception, every embryo is perfect in every detail. Only because a mother smokes, or someone smokes in her presence, can the embryo become less than perfect as it develops. No child is born with an infirmity without some external cause, be it alcohol, tobacco, diet or whatever. There are no genetic abnormalities because no studies exist about such a possibility, and if there are no studies, there is no problem, otherwise, there would be studies.

But I am sure that there are such studies. However, from the point of view of the Tobacco Control Industry, they are unmentionable. Such studies might undermine tobacco control and ‘re-normalise’ uncertainty surrounding ‘the standard human child’. There is no mileage for them in such information being available, so hide it away from public sight. There are little infants who die from lung cancer. It happens. The number are tiny (less than ten in the UK per an) but it happens. You would think that ‘medical scientists’ would be very curious to dissect their bodies to try to find out the reason for their deaths, and perhaps they do, but nothing ever appears in print, as far as I know. Perhaps such research is deliberately kept secret. Perhaps, even, such research is the source of the ‘molecular biology’ studies which describe the molecular pathways which cause cells to become cancerous. Not all research will appear in the Lancet or the BMJ. It would not be in the interests of the Tobacco Control Industry for anyone outside the Medical Establishment to know that an infant of two year of age was dissected after death from lung cancer, and that inexplicable deficiencies on chromosome ? by the absence of enzyme ? were the likely cause. The whole TCI depends upon no one knowing that there is no such thing as the ‘standard human child’.

======

The reason that this thought came into my mind was listening to the harridan Nathanson from the BMA on the Sunday Politics Show on BBC1. Andrew Neil discussed the BMA call for Prohibition with Nathanson and Simon Clark from Forest. You can watch and listen here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b046v5yz/sunday-politics-london-29062014

The discussion takes place after the bit about the EU and Cameron’s hopes to renegotiate the UK’s membership, just about 25 minutes in.

If you watch it, you will note that Nathanson does not really try to defend the ludicrous idea of the legal application of a cut-off date for the sale of tobacco to individuals born in the year 2000 and thereafter. She just spouts jargon and slogans. “50 percent of smokers are killed by it”, “Almost all smokers become addicted before they are 20” (something like that) she says. “We have to do this; WE have to do that”, she says. When it was put to her that even old people would have to produce a birth certificate to show that they were born before 2000, her reply was that ‘WE do not know what form the legislation would have to be’. I don’t know why Andrew Neil allowed her to get away with that.

——

It took me a little time to realise what the reality is. Nathanson and the BMA know perfectly well that their idea is ludicrous. What they are doing is raising the idea of PROHIBITION off the bottom rung of the ladder. They are aware that they have got away with murder in every step of their plan, starting with the smoking ban. And, they have become confident that they can do it again – not at some far date in the future, but here and now. Is it not easy? The Zealots in the Health Dept propose some harmless looking legislation and, suddenly, towards the end of the process, they get a tame MP to propose an amendment introducing PROHIBITION. They have done it before, again and again, successfully. What’s the problem? That is their intention. When the proposals are being discussed, a tame quack doctor or professor will point out the ludicrous idea of birth certificates, and thus the prohibition will be extended to everyone. No problem. Done and dusted. As Nathanson said, it will not be illegal to smoke, but it will be illegal to make, import and sell tobacco products. You are allowed to use what you cannot obtain. If that idea was applied to alcohol (which it would be eventually), you would be able to go to the pub for a pint, but there would be no pints.

It is important to get inside the minds of these people. What they have looked for is a ‘choke point’. Where is the point where tobacco use can be terminated most effectively? In this case, that point is retailers. If shops are not permitted to stock and sell tobacco, then there would be no point in having a supply of tobacco, or in manufacturing or importing tobacco products. The whole industry would die, merely by hitting the ‘choke point’ – retailers. Smuggling and black markets are not their problem. They just want legislation. The pattern has already been set.

=========

But everything depends upon ‘the standard human child’. Nathanson said so. ALL smokers start to smoke as standard children and all become immediately totally addicted. Therefore, whatever it takes. ALL smoking has to be stopped among standard human children. PROHIBITION is the only way, and it must be prohibition for ALL.

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Standard Human Child”

  1. cherie79 Says:

    I watched that programme this morning, it was ludicrous and I too was surprised Andrew Neil didn’t pick her up more, as he is the only political broadcaster I still admire. As for 50% of smokers dying from if! a few of my friends have died from various cancers smokers or not. I simply cannot understand this obcession with smoking and how something quite normal just a decade ago is suddenly lethal.

    • junican Says:

      It isn’t lethal and never has been. 85% of smokers die from ‘tobacco related diseases’, but so do 84% of non-smokers. It tobacco kills half its uses, not using tobacco kills a little less than half its non-users.
      The whole thing is a blur.
      Neil tried to pin Nathanson down a little, but, like the rest of her ilk, she is very slippery. Nothing that she said was substantiated. She spoke in slogans. For example, “50% of smokers are killed by smoking”. What can Neil say? What he should say is ‘what is the proof of that statement?’ But there isn’t time, and that is the major problem. The slogan is easy to say, but to either prove or disprove the slogan takes far too long. She would probably say that ‘hundreds of studies have shown it to be true’. Where do you go from there? It just takes too long. I suppose that the best answer to the slogan would be another slogan. For example, ‘and the medical profession of yesteryear believed that malaria was cause by bad air from swamps’.

  2. beobrigitte Says:

    The standard human child……

    No child is born with an infirmity without some external cause, be it alcohol, tobacco, diet or whatever. There are no genetic abnormalities because no studies exist about such a possibility, and if there are no studies, there is no problem, otherwise, there would be studies.

    There are quite a few genetic abnormalities, just to mention trisomy 21; NONE of them can be attributed to smoking.

    Watching an interview with Vivienne Nathanson is like listening to a stuck record.

    She just spouts jargon and slogans. “50 percent of smokers are killed by it”, “Almost all smokers become addicted before they are 20″ (something like that) she says. “We have to do this; WE have to do that”, she says.

    It’s not that she is slim and athletic looking, isn’t it? And, quite frankly, her weight and (lack of) physical activity is her problem; nevertheless, I believe we are also being told that being fat KILLS YOUNG people!

    How old are these “50% of smokers that allegedly are killed” by smoking? At what age do the other 50% die? Do anti-smokers live forever? (It might seem that way to them)

    The “standard human child” grows up to be a “standard human adult” when forbidden to buy tobacco products? Really????

    • junican Says:

      I’m sure that there are lots of known genetic faults – dwarfism, mongolism, to think of two obvious ones. But of course I am talking about the deliberate generalisation by TC of all children as exactly the same. They do not even differentiate between a ten year old and a seventeen year old.
      “5o% of smokers ….. ” Perhaps Simon Clark could have interjected right away, loudly, “And what do the other 50% die from?” (As you suggested) That would be a nice counter-slogan.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: