The Effrontry of Health Zealots

It is a couple of days ago since Chris Snowden revealed that one, Susan Jebb, revealed the hubris of Health Zealots. She said that, if shopkeepers and supermarkets did not willingly comply with her demands that they remove children’s treats from a position near their tills, then her organisation  would “push for a law”. She threatened to “go to ministers” if the industry is not quick to reduce the promotion of “products that people don’t need”.

Her organisation is called “the food network of the DoH’s Public Health Responsibility Deal”, and she is chairperson.

Do we note what is extremely odd about the above? We ought to. What is odd is the whole idea of ‘a Responsibility Deal’. Who invented the idea of ‘A Responsibility Deal’ and does it actually exist, and who are the participants? Have all corner shops acceded? When did they do so and how did they do so? It strikes me that the ‘Responsibility  Deal’ is a figment of the lady’s imagination, or rather, a deliberate invention which she and her committee are using to deceive the public an MPs.

THERE IS NO ‘RESPONSIBILTY DEAL’. The phrase is just another verbal trick.


I find it difficult to understand how the ‘Minsters’ whom she intends to ‘go to’ are still oblivious to the trickery. Is the whole Cabinet absolutely doolally? Is the Health Minister himself out of his mind? Why does he put up with it? Frankly, I think that there has not been a Health Minister for decades who has not been totally out of his/her depth. The Smoking Ban, in itself, shows this to be true. It was never justified or justifiable. Even at the time, the ‘science’ about SHS was known to be false. I have said, again and again (although only recently, since I was not aware of the facts) that it may be true that SHS is dangerous,  but very few people point out the timescales involved in the effect. If the Doctors Study showed truly that it takes thirty years or so for smoking to affect smokers, then it must take centuries for SHS to have a similar effect, unless there are a few people who are genetically ‘weak’. (By the way, with a population of 60 million, ‘a few’ might mean thousands). The Smoking Ban was based upon the argument that bar staff are exposed to intolerable levels of SHS which would make them ill and kill them. Well… That may be true, provided that they work in such bars for two hundred years or so, if not more.

Our lungs are sturdy and hard-wearing. They have had to be over the last million years, if not longer. But they will eventually ‘wear out’. That is called ‘old age’. All of us will eventually peg out no matter what we do, because one or more of our major organs will cease to function. But none of our major organs will cease to function because of SHS. When you think about it, the idea of SHS harm is ridiculous.

So why was the Smoking Ban passed?

I believe that ‘epidemiology’ is the modern equivalent of witchcraft. I mean that. Can the Zealots produce even ONE person who has died as a result of breathing SHS? They cannot. So, the only reasonable explanation for the computed figure of deaths from SHS is witchcraft.

Epidemiology, used as a tool wisely and factually, can be illuminating. Dr Snow used this method to discover that a certain water pump in London was contaminated and spreading cholera. On the other hand, the same method blamed swamps for creating malaria, rather than the mosquitoes which bred in the swamps. By the word ‘facts’, I mean actual people who died or became ill from some condition as a result of some specific cause. The ’cause’ needs to be proven to be the cause of the condition. There is not even proof positive that smoking in itself causes diseases. (See the McTear Case).


My ‘research’ in Magalluf showed me that that ‘the youth’ are used to the dire predictions of the Health Zealots and ignore them. They hear the warnings and have heard them all before. “That’s life”, said a female youth to me. The Youth do not believe a word that the Health Zealots say. The Youth is not scared. Only ninety-year-olds are scared. (OK – I exaggerate a bit)

I have said that only politicians (and especially the Cabinet) have power. When they pass laws such as the Smoking Ban, they misuse that power. They thus render themselves to be tyrants. And it does not matter if half of them resign. The tyranny continues to exist.


Finally, for tonight, I do not understand why it is taking so long for tobacco, alcohol, food, salt, sugar organisations to get together, and specifically to get proper statisticians to pronounce upon the witchcraft. You see, very few of the Zealots understand statistics, even though they use them. They are happy with the witchcraft.

I do not understand, and it might well be true that none of organisations mentioned above understand that they are being witch-hunted.


18 Responses to “The Effrontry of Health Zealots”

  1. puffer1965 Says:

    Hi has anyone tried the herbal tobacco from isreal

    • junican Says:

      Yes, I have. I bought it from the organisation in Israel and it arrived after a few days marked ‘herbs’.
      I was impressed by the taste – it was very like tobacco. I could detect no significant difference. After trying it, I put on one side, intending to mix it with my more powerful home-grown, but I forgot about it. I was surprised, when I remembered it some months later, to see that it had gone mouldy. I don’t know why it went mouldy because it was in a sealed plastic bag in a dry, warm place. I had to throw it out. It was shredded to about 1mm, just like rolling tobacco.
      I would love to know what the process involves. As I understand it, the ‘scientist’ used lettuce leaves and various enzymes, but I’m not sure at all.

  2. cherie79 Says:

    It is a mystery to me why there has been so little fight back by the persecuted industries. Assuming they are not stupid there must be some reason does anyone have any ideas?

    • Rose Says:

      From what I can see they have gone for appeasement.

      Lead, regulate, challenge

      “The Portman Group is the responsibility body for drinks producers in the UK.

      Our role is to:

      Lead on best practice in alcohol social responsibility through the actions of member companies.

      Regulate the promotion and packaging of alcoholic drinks sold or marketed in the UK through our Code of Practice.

      Challenge and encourage the industry to market its products responsibly.

      The Portman Group is a not-for-profit organisation funded by nine member companies who represent every sector of drinks production and collectively account for more than half the UK alcohol market.”

      The video of their accomplishments on that page are disturbing as if they too think that their customers are simple.

      Their spokesperson seemed quite shocked on the BBC News the other day, as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse demanded new cigarette style health warnings on bottles

      “Labour peer Clive Brooke, vice-chairman of the group, said that after smoking “alcohol is the second biggest preventable killer” in Britain and it was time politicians stood up to the powerful drinks industry.”

      Bet that came as a shock.

    • Rose Says:


      “The Portman Group established the Drinkaware website in 2004 and went on to establish the Drinkaware Trust in 2006.”


      Alcohol Concern

      “Alcohol Concern was formed in 1984 as the national umbrella body for the alcohol field. It was incorporated as a charity in 1985 to be the national agency on alcohol misuse, covering the United Kingdom. Members and Trustees are drawn from all regions, but in practice the focus has rested on the Westminster Government, as devolution has progressed.”

      “The Alcohol Health Alliance UK is a United Kingdom organisation established in November 2007 to increase awareness of unhealthy alcohol use and its ramifications on health and society. Initiated by the Royal College of Physicians of London, its membership includes 21 British health organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners.”

      • junican Says:

        It sounds like the Portman Group is nothing other than an ASH-type organisation which has little or nothing to do with the drinks industry. As usual, the same gang of Zealots create several fake charities, pretending that there are several interested groups when there is, in fact, only one, and that is very small also. It is the same sort of pretence as ‘Sir’, ‘Doctor’ and ‘Professor’. Meaningless ‘appeals to authority’, or rather, ‘pretence of authority’.
        What surprises me is that all the industries which must surely see the future threat have not got together to pull all the junk science apart. Tobacco advertising is banned, but are factual statements banned? If I were to say, “My cigs are cheaper. They cost only £5.00 per packet. So buy them”, that is advertising. It seems to me that the current advertising ban is not only about ‘persuading to purchase’, which is the true intention of advertising, but to attempt to eradicate all knowledge about tobacco.
        But it has failed miserably, as we know. My ‘research’ in Magalluf showed pretty clearly that ‘the yooff’ has not been frightened by the propaganda. As the young woman said, “That’s life”. IE, The propaganda bombardment is what they expect and that they ignore all the ‘frighteners’.

        I am surprised that the salt and sugar industries are not taking out adverts on TV etc simply showing people how carefully they ensure the purity of their products. Also, organisations that produce juices should do likewise. In other words, counter the ‘frighteners’ by emphasising ‘purity’. Note that there is an implied change of direction from ‘population’ to ‘individual’.

      • Rose Says:


        “The Portman Group is a trade group composed of alcoholic beverage producers and brewers in the UK.”

        Like I said, appeasement and it’s not going to work.

  3. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    ” then it must take centuries for SHS to have a similar effect,”

    There are very sound arguments that the EPA Report greatly exaggerated any actual harm from ETS, but even if we offer the antismoking forces the advantage of assuming that its conclusions were true, it’s important to remember WHAT THOSE CONCLUSIONS MEAN.

    They claimed a 19% increase over the base rate in lung cancer for workers who had worked for 40 years in the smoke-filled workplace situations of the 1940s through 1970s/80s. The base rate of LC is 4 per thousand persons in a lifetime. So that means 40 years of such concentrated exposure increases that my (19%x4/1000) or 1 extra per thousand. That’s one actual extra case of lung cancer for every 40,000 worker-years of exposure.

    Of course that’s only true in those very smoky and unventilated conditions. Any half-decent smoking-allowed establishment today would have smoke levels at probably about 1/10th of those levels, which would mean one extra case of lung cancer for every 400,000 worker-years of exposure.

    Now picture a mother/father worrying about their teen/20ish daughter working for a whole year in such a place that allows smoking. The extra risk involved is about one in 400,000 of a cancer that wouldn’t occur until 20 to 40+ years in the future.

    Meanwhile, what are the chances that the poor daughter will be killed by-or-in a car on her way to and from work? Do they also worry about that every night? While any numbers you’d come up with would be a bit squishy and depend on all sorts of urban/rural//driving/walking//miles/intersections sorts of variables, some very rough in-the-head calculations based on US population and car deaths would indicate the daughter’s risk of an IMMEDIATE death from a Killer Car would be on the order of ten times or greater than her risk of a death FAR IN THE FUTURE from ETS workplace exposure today.

    The Antis of course will try to claim the number of deaths should be multiplied by heart disease deaths, but, as the collection of studies in Slab One of TobakkoNacht showed pretty clearly, those claims are far more in the realm of nonsensical propaganda than scientific reality.

    When antismoking claims are examined without the prejudicial language and presentation, and when the statistics are compared to the normal statistics of life, we see that EVEN THOSE CLAIMS amount to very little in terms of normal human day-to-day life, risk, and experience. Do black widow spiders kill? Most certainly. But only the most paranoid neurotic/psychotic souls spend their lives worrying about black widow spiders every day.

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      Michael. I struggle to know if there is any genuine, physical research into SHS, never mind THS. SHS danger is a joke. Why? Because of time-scales. The Doctors Study showed (if you believe it) that smoking takes decades to have any effect. If that is true, then SHS must take centuries to have an effect. It cannot be otherwise.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Junican, actually, I think it can be otherwise. Think of it as lying down out in a field. Most days you’re perfectly safe, and most people lying around in fields would just eventually die of old age or by smothering under cow patties.

        BUT… some of them will die early deaths from getting hit by lightning. The traditional view of the link with lung cancer would be that a certain number, say 20 to 50% of the lazy bums, like to hold on to a golf club pegged upright in the ground next to them as they laze their days away. That group is more likely to get hit by lightning, and will, on the average, get hit a good number of years sooner. Then there’s the ETS or SHS group. Again, the traditional view would hold that they are holding on to a fountain pen that they’ve stuck in the ground. Some VERY small percentage of those folks might conceivably get hit by lightning because of a strike on that little “lightning rod.”

        It’s not a question of time, but a question of percentages and numbers. If you accept the “no threshold” theory of carcinogenesis, then ANY extra exposure to ANY human carcinogen increases your chance of cancer by at least some zeptocopic amount. Ethyl alcohol is a carcinogen. You inhale millions of picograms of the deadly stuff when you hang out in a pub where people are drinking. You consume it directly, in the hundreds of milligrams, in every pint of orange juice you drink! The poor, helpless innocent little child unfortunate enough to share an outdoor patio with you while you have your morning orange juice will probably have millions or billions of yoctograms of the horrible, carcinogenic, poisonous stuff forced down their throats and over their delicate mucous membranes.

        As for parents who give the stuff DIRECTLY to their children… well… THEY should obviously be drawn and quartered! (You guys still do that over there? Rather effective as a deterrent I would guess……)


  4. cherie79 Says:

    A bit off topic but they are starting on the very young, my 6 year old grandson asked my why I smoked? As per advice I told him because I liked it as he liked sweets. He said but it is bad and you will be all black inside, too young to explain I just said yes it is not good and you won’t do it, the way things are going he won’t have a choice anyway. My rather feisty granddaughter, nearly 5, asked where the smoke went to and tried to catch it. She then asked if she could make smoke too! This was in my garden, my one concession is to smoke outside when the kids are here. My cleaner says her 6 year old is getting the same message in a different school.

    • junican Says:

      Thanks for that Cherie. I find the whole sentiment to be incredibly sad. Eventually, your grandchildren will amuse themselves. They will not ask your permission. If you put yourself into a position in which you, ‘de facto’, ask ‘the authorities’ to permit you to enjoy tobacco in your own home, but submit yourself to torture via school brainwashing of your grandchildren, then you are extremely stupid!
      Cherie, my dear, TEACH YOUR GRANDCHILDREN. None of mine dictate to me AT ALL.
      Perhaps that is because I have taken them on holiday with me at my expense. There is nothing like a bit of bribery, is there?

      • cherie79 Says:

        Don’t worry I don’t let them dictate but they are too young to understand yet, I will educate them more when they are older, just don’t want to confuse them now. I wish schools would stick to teaching but I guarantee 100% of parents approve of the anti smoking message. I don’t have to smoke in the garden but when the weather is nice it seems sensible. I would never allow my son or daughter in law to tell me what to do in my own house, especially if they want to inherit it!

      • junican Says:

        You may be right about the parents. But would the approve if teachers started to teach children that 2 + 3 = 6, or that 7 x 3 = 22? Because that is what teachers are doing when the exaggerate the harm of smoking, and especially about SHS.
        I suppose that they are also teaching them not to eat sweets or drink pop.

      • cherie79 Says:

        I agree but the parents would have to object and I can’t see that happening any time soon. I remember years ago before the ban a friends young son, about 8 then, sobbing because his mum smoked and she was going to die. I thought that was terrible and tried to assure him I had smoked for 40 years and I was still here.

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      Cherie, using our children and grandchildren as weapons against us is nothing new at all unfortunately. It’s a very conscious part of their campaign thinking.

      – MJM

  5. DP Says:

    Dear Mr Junican

    The Responsibility Deal is a healthist cult and cottage industry with corporatist associations within the Department of Health (DOH):

    The first interim monitoring report on the Responsibility Deal Alcohol Network – Pledge to remove 1 billion units of alcohol from the market by end 2015 can be read here:

    This covers the first year from 2011 to 2012 – nearly a year and a half to produce 30 pages. Parkinson’s Law methinks.

    Page 12 shows total market in alcohol has reduced from 52.1 to 51.9 billion units, a fall of 1.3 billion units. So job done, you would think. By a process of thaumic manipulation known only to themselves, they reduce this to 252 million units (para 21, page 13)

    Appendix C lists the annual reports of signatories to the Responsibility Deal. It reads like a mix of confessions at show trials and reports by sections of SPECTRE. Many producers seem pleased that they are watering down their beers.

    God alone knows how much this is costing the poor taxpaying consumer. Time the corporates took a stand against this rubbish on behalf of their paying customers.

    The DOH boys are a bunch of Jeremys*. Sack the lot of them.


    * Jeremy Hunts – BBC rhyming slang

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: