Why Have Many Anti-Tobacco Control Sites Become Rather Inactive?

I’m just thinking aloud here, but I have noticed that quite a few of my ‘favourites’ have not posted anything for some time. I am wondering why. Have they been ground down, or is it because TC has ground to a halt? Certainly, TC is making a lot of noise about the plain packaging stuff, but if they succeed, PP will not directly hurt PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco). Nor will it hurt tobacco companies since the existing brands will continue with their loyal following. Thus, companies like Philip Morris will, in effect, have a monopoly. People who might wish to change brands for whatever reason will have little option but to try lots of different brands in order to choose one.

I know that that has been true for a long time, ever since advertising was banned, and probably before that, in view of the individuality of taste, but there will be a huge difference with PP, which is that it will be awfully hard to know what brands exist since they will all look the same. Apart from choosing according to the nastiness of the gory picture on the packet, how might a person begin? The obvious way is to go by the price. “How much is THAT packet?” “£7.50”. “And how much is THAT one?” £7.30″ “OK, I’ll try that one” Thus, premium brands will lose sales.

Funnily enough, in the first instance, that might be good for new brands. “How much is that packet?” “£6.90, but it only has 19 cigs in it” Quick calculation: difference from £7.30 packet is 40p. Cost per cig of 20 pack = about 36p; cost per cig of 19 pack, about 36p. No difference. Hip-dip-Dash. So back to price. But Philip Morris will soon cotton on and reduce their prices to ‘the monopolistic norm’. Bang goes any thought of ‘quality’. While the Zealots are blathering about nicotine content, carbon monoxide, menthol and e-cigs, PM will be using expanded tobacco, which weighs less and burns down more quickly. Easy-peasy profits. NO ONE WILL KNOW WHAT IS IN THE CIGARETTES. We will see a monopoly of cheap and nasty cigarettes. (When I say ‘cheap’, I mean pre-tax: when I say ‘nasty’, I mean variable quality tobacco, but not poisonous)

But, essentially, PP will not reduce smoking prevalence, either among adults or ‘children’. For consumers, including ‘children’, nothing will change.

So, at the moment, for us PETS, there is nothing much happening. There are far away countries, that we know little about, like Australia and the USA, who are banning smoking in the open air in parks, on beaches and in ‘al fresco’ areas of pubs. So what? The sillier their bans become, the sillier the Zealots will be seen to be, and the sooner they will start to be ridiculed. There is not much happening, or, such that is happening, is on no importance to PETS.

—–

It is easy to see why it is that some blogs have ‘rested’.

But that attitude is wrong.

It is important to keep on questioning the assumptions. For example, the fact that there is a thirty year delay between a person starting to enjoy tobacco and that person getting lung cancer, does NOT mean that smoking causes LC after 30 years of smoking as a result of smoking.  Is there any ‘disease’ in the world which takes 30 years to accumulate? No! The 30 years stuff is just another assumption, based upon the statistics of the Doctors Study. There is no verification. It is a rationalisation. “Malaria is very prevalent in people who live near swamps, therefore swamps cause malaria, but these people do not get malaria straight away. They get this disease after 30 year have elapsed. We know this because we have counted the years between a person living near a swamp and getting malaria. Most still live near swamps, and they are the ones who most commonly get malaria, but some have moved away, and they get less malaria. The longer that you live away from swamps, the more likely it is that you will not get malaria”

But what really causes malaria? It is a parasite which mosquitoes carry. What causes lung cancer ……?

Do not accept the preconceptions as true. They may or may not be. Remember always that the Zealots in the Medical Profession control what studies should be undertaken. For example, what studies were undertaken in the past concerning LC in Veterans of WW1 and WW2 as compared with non-combatants?

Some interesting studies have been conducted. For example, a person named Kitty Little conducted a study in South Africa. It found that smokers in cities which were windy, even though they had lots of industry and motor traffic, had a lot less LC than smokers in cities which tended to have frequent still air conditions (aka, smogs). She also showed that people who lived in the ‘interior’ (far away from smoky, smoggy cities), rarely suffered LC, even though they smoked a lot. Another study showed clearly that people who live at the top of high-rise buildings have less heart problems than those who live on the lowest floors. Another study in the USA showed that people who are over 90 years of age did not have a particularly healthy lifestyle – some smoked, some didn’t; some drank, some didn’t. And all the variations that one might imagine. And there has been the Bofetta Study, on behalf of the WHO – a huge study which could not find any link between heart problems (I think) and SHS. And there was the Enstrom and Kabat study about the incidence of LC in spouses of smokers, which showed no effect, even after 30 0r 40 years of spousal smoking. The WHO did its best to hide the Bofetta Study, but was found out by a newspaper.

And then we have the McTear Case (see sidebar). New readers should read my Summary of the Case. It ought to have been simple for The Medical Profession to ‘prove’, for the purpose of a civil case (meaning ‘on the balance of probabilities’ rather than the criminal case of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’), but they failed even to produce their evidence that smoking causes LC. Note that – they failed even to produce their evidence. The Judge complained about the lack of evidence, and kicked the idea into touch. The Medical Profession failed abysmally. The judge found against the Medical Profession on every count.

It is important to note that the McTear Case was not simply an action by a person named McTear against Imperial Tobacco. It was a ‘test case’. Originally, ASH asked for volunteers, and it chose Mr McTear as its best option. But ASH is just the propaganda arm of the Royal College of Physicians, aka, the Medical Profession (along with the BMA). McTear was the useful tool, ASH was the vehicle used to select the participants, lawyers and such, but, behind it all was the RCP and the Medical Profession in general. Except that ‘The Medical Profession’ is represented by Zealots like non-medical people such as Glantz, Chapman and others. Further, even further back, were the Zealots who have gained control of the NHS.

——–

We must never give in. There has never been any positive proof whatsoever that smoking causes LC or any other disease. Even more, the idea that SHS causes any problems at all is a mirage, apart from people who should never venture outside without wearing a mask. There may well be such people, and they may subject to asthma attacks as a result of seeing some activity of which they are afraid.

Contest everything. The Doctors Study is not some sort of gospel. We do not know that it was not  ‘fixed’, even in minor ways. Little attempt was made to account for war-time experiences, and little attempt was made to note geographical differences. Thus, despite the fact that 34,000 male doctors took part in the study, it suffers from the usual uncertainties – bias, false reporting, lack of consideration of other factors, failure to account for the delayed effect, lack of clarity that it was only very old doctors who died in the main, and uncertainty about the real ’cause of death’.

Because of the uncertainties, we must question everything, over and over again. There are so many charlatans who have latched on to anti-smoking to make a lot of bucks that the whole ‘profession’ has become hopelessly corrupt. Hopelessly corrupt.

It needs only one Nation to stand up and shout for the whole edifice to collapse. But that Nation must SHOUT, otherwise it will be ignored. Not only ignored, but undermined and its economy damaged (World Bank influence). SHOUTING is important. But one cannot shout if no one can hear because the MSM is also corrupt. For example, the MSM, especially the BBC, keep publishing obviously staged ‘propaganda’ for ‘the rebels’.

—–

When in doubt, and when the News has nothing to say, ask who “owns” ASH, and who pays for ASH. Ask why the Lotto gave £500,000 to ASH.

====

There are things that I am not sure about, and which need to be explored. For example, can I instruct my MP to ask a question, addressed to a Minister, in Parliament? The question need not be actually voiced in the chamber. It might be a written question. For example (and this is silly, I suppose), one might ask how much skinny people cost the NHS! How many plump people become skinny when they become old. How many skinny people die ‘prematurely’.

It is obvious that the Health Dept will attract charlatans since it is a massive monopoly, as is the WHO etc. We need a Churchill-type person to sort everything out. Thus, the many sites which have become silent might revive themselves because they have something to cheer about.

 

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Why Have Many Anti-Tobacco Control Sites Become Rather Inactive?”

  1. JJ Says:

    If it’s one thing that you learn about so called professionals (particularly in tobacco control), is that they are just as capable of lying as any other human being on the planet. It’s a conditioned reflex mechanism which humans have for protection or evasion, especially when vested interests are at stake.

    I have asked this question many times (including FOI requests) of so called health professionals and the DOH, but never had an answer.

    1. ‘What is the biological sequence of events whereby the inhalation of smoke from a cigarette, cigar, or pipe mutates healthy lung tissue into cancerous lung tissue?’
    2. ‘To what extent is genetics involved, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% or not at all?’

    No so called medical professional has answers to either of these questions.

    That smoking causes lung cancer is a conventional wisdom that’s grown up over the last six decades and has no basis in scientific or medical fact, if it did we would all be dropping dead like flies from carbon monoxide poisoning pumped out by petrol and diesel engines by the ton every day of the week.

    An idea I put to Simon Clark (because of his possible contacts within the media) a couple of years back, was to find a production company that would make a documentary/semi drama in a courtroom style format where the main protagonists in TC would be cross-examined about the success or otherwise of the smoking ban. This of course would cover a very broad area. Clark didn’t think this would work.

    It would work. Ostensibly they would be there to give evidence about how well the ban is working – they would have no idea about the brutal and forensic cross-examination that would follow. I would be more than happy to take on that role. It would be a request that big ego’s in TC could never resist. I am sure that with sufficient advertising perhaps even the BBC would transmit it.

    I contacted several production companies but without success, however there was a Canadian company that showed some interest which I never followed up because I wanted a British company. I don’t suppose it matters though.

    Talking about cancer, a fascinating book by Lauren A. Colby which can’t be found on his site now because of his death some time ago, can be found on Dave Hitt’s site. I contacted him and here is the link, usefully it’s in PDF form, so download and save it. Great reading!

    http://www.smokersclub.com/Colby/colby.html

    • junican Says:

      I’ve bookmarked the link to read later. I may possibly have read it before. I think that I read about your courtroom-type set up elsewhere (at Taking Liberties?). Do you really think that TC would cooperate? I doubt it – they would run a mile!
      But, surely you have read my summary of the McTear Case (see sidebar)? The courtroom events have already take place, and the Zealots failed miserably.
      But you would think that it had never happened, for all anyone has taken any notice. Somehow, TC have gained the power and the money to deceive and propagandise.

  2. moss Says:

    Junican, relating to your idea of a documentary sparked off a certain recollection for me, and it’s something that’s always been a thorn in my side for many years. Hopefully you will forgive my digression from tobacco, but the pattern of events is very similar to those being employed by the zealots today..

    As you and I are of the same age group, you will no doubt remember the early denials of UFOs, during the late 50s to mid 60s. The BBC, ran a number of programmes relating to these strange events, which amounted to having six witnesses on the right hand side of the TV screen, and six, rather well educated questioners on the left side. Everything ‘appeared’ to be so authentic because the world trusted the word of the BBC to be – God’s truth!

    If only for expediency, the object of the programmes was for the better educated to make the witnesses appear to be mentally under par, and their testimonies totally unreliable; this was easy meat – a piece of cake in fact – for those with well rehearsed words. The problem for me at this time, was that I, personally – along with many other people, were witnessing a denial of absolute fact.

    Like I said at the out-set, this comment is along way from the TC quangos of the tobacco ante brigade, but the pattern of events – even in reversed order, are the same as!
    It’s rather like a finger-print that can be viewed from the back, and the front. For an obvious reason, I have always had a deep fascination with behavioral patterns, thanks to the dear old BBC, and the likes, but I posses a deeper, but far deeper interest in the people who manipulate, or control them – and make every effort to remain faceless – even if it means using someone else’s face!

    Like I said, Junican, “you and I are of the same age group,” therefore, we have seen, and heard it (all) before. Probably the younger end, of the brain-washed zealots and their controllers think we are well passed our sell by dates – but what a thorn in their sides we really must be – makes you feel somewhat proud to still being around to contest their lies! There’s nothing like pure logic to burst their bubble of artificial lies!

    The tobacco fiasco is not about health – never was! However, controlling the minds of the masses is the thin end of the wedge for total control; and the continuation of Hitler’s blue-print of totalitarianism.The people involved do their utmost to remain faceless, but it is blatantly obvious, that this intention is being over-looked by the forced head-lines that we read about – that’s if you’re stupid enough to believe what you read and hear!

    On a final note, I would ask readers, on the subject of the UFO denial – how many programmes does the BBC, put out today denying the existence of such ‘imaginary’ things? Actually the subject has been reversed – you’re an idiot if such things do not occur because there are too many eye witlessness. Will it be in time, that LC and tobacco will be equally questioned and denied? Yes, indeed it will because truth always has the last word on such matters!

    We really do live in a bubble of down right lies! But,thanks to our friends M.J. M. and Harley, and other cousins from across the pond, and – I would add -valuable input from our own fellow countrymen. We are aware that what Junican states for our readers, is the truth of what others would like us to become through their high pressure lies and poisoned propaganda. You are right, Junican, in thinking. that readers don’t respond – that’s because you say it all – as it should be said!

    • junican Says:

      If by UFOs you mean ‘unidentified flying objects’. then I am sure that there are lots of them, but I have difficulty in accepting the idea of ‘aliens’, unless they had some form of existence which was totally different from our own. They would have to be ‘immaterial’. The reason is that any ‘body’ made of matter could not travel at the speed of light without ceasing to be matter.
      I have some theories of my own. What is SPACE? It must be a ‘thing’, otherwise it would not exist. But what is it and what are its properties? But no physicist seems to want to go there. How can they? We have no way of investigating the nature of SPACE – at this time. Perhaps in the future…. Einstein only tentatively suggest in the Theory of Relativity that space could be bent and twisted, compressed and stretched, but he talked about ‘the gravitational field ‘g’, as though it was Space itself.
      It must be thirty years since I was ‘exposed’ to the tricks of advertising – the use of the concept of ‘unique selling point’, ‘golden’ words as opposed to ‘dross’ words, constant repetition of ‘the message’, manipulation of the media via ‘events’, etc. Everything in advertising is emotional and sloppy sentimentality. Tobacco Control have been using exactly the same tricks – love of children, fear of pain and death, etc.
      But, to me, these tricks do not belong in matters of health. In health, precision is very important because each individual is different.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: